Talk:Agroecology

Comments

Tried to add a few things that came to mind, and stay away from those old controversies.

It would be nice to hear from some agronomists, entomologists, other non-social sciences. Also, something representing the places in the world other than the Americas would be cool.

Will return soon, hope you build on what I started!

J

Disagreement

I personally don't agree on the sentence:

"use of genetically modified organisms and artificially selected crops[1] meanwhile agroecology tends to minimize the human impact."

Simply because a "crop" is inherently artificially selected. Neither maize, or wheat, or rice, or tomato, and so on, exist naturally as such. An agro-ecosystem is artificial by definition, and its biodiversity is not natural. Therefore, I don't see how the use of new developed varieties as well as of genetically modified crops can be considered wrong. Agro-ecology, in fact, should be focused on minimizing the effect of human impact. Not the impact itself, since there is no "agro" at all without human activity. New artificially selected crop varieties as well as genetically improved plants, I believe, should be taken seriously into consideration as effective tools for improving agriculture sustainability, without any ideological prejudice. Agriculture has never been and never will be "natural".

Paolo Voltolina, Ph.D. Plant and Agriculture Biotechnologist

I don't think most agroecologists are opposed to artifically selected crops either. Rather, they'd like to make us of plant breeding. They generally don't agree with genetic engineering, as that's 'unnatural' compared to the artifical selection of plant breeding. By the way, remember to try and sign your posts. ImperfectlyInformed (ImperfectlyInformed) 10:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Gonna try to spruce this up

I'm going to make some changes on this article and bring it up to presentable status. ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

working

group of agroecology students working on this and related sites- working on wording and information pretty carefully, so if you have an issue with anything left on the site, please discuss here. Hysilvinia (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing these include the IP editors. Could they try making accounts? You know, you could actually copy the page into a subpage draft, and then copy the thing in. Perhaps /AgroecologyDraft. II | (t - c) 01:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the IP editors and I have intentionally refrained from making a user account because this is my personal preference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.31.106 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Please edit the draft in the interests of making the history of the actual article not unmanageably long. Please? II | (t - c) 01:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that much of what we have added was necessary because it speaks to the breadth and depth of the subject area. If you look at the Ecology or Sociology or Agriculture pages, you see that they are all very long because the subjects are large and apply to many different areas. I think a reader can still get the gist of what Agroecology is from what we have added and if they want more information, it's all there. I think that is necessary for this subject area since it is new and still developing academically and contextually. Agroecology has a rich history and information of that history is lacking not only on Wikipedia, but on the entire internet. I agree that sentence structures could be tightened, but the content is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.31.106 (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd just prefer that you worked on that subpage if you're doing to do a bunch of edits without edit summaries or minor tags. It's nice to be able to scan the history of the article quickly. II | (t - c) 19:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations

If anyone looks at this after the fact, I couldn't track down a citation for Buttel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertoch (talk • contribs) 06:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Applying ecological engineering

Interesting letter in Nature recently.[1] II | (t - c) 19:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible Mischaracterization of Agroecology

Under the heading, 'The science of agroecology,' we have:

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, 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[1].

These are important distinctions; organic-extensive-natural enemy-polyculture-low input-style agriculture was what I was attempting to look up and this is probably true for a good many other people who come to this entry on agroecology. Maybe it would be good to name the single topic that emphasizes these things...is there one? I'll admit for a little while I did think that was what agroecology was all about, as a matter of fact I am reading a textbook right now (Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture by Stephen R. Gliessman, published 1998, Sleeping Bear Press) that explains agroecology as just this sort of thing you guys are saying it is not. What's the deal? Is there indeed a general consensus on the above quote and, if so, why the seemingly common misconception?

Help me out, thanks. Pandim (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

suggested addition to why agroecologists might not recommend no-till

An addition to the section on why agroecologists might not recommend not-till is that conservation agriculture in the US generally refers to using a “burn-down” herbicide such as round-up (glyphosate) and the need to use round-up ready seeds. This is one of the main reasons no-till is often associated with increased chemical use in comparison to traditional tillage based methods of crop production and is not considered organic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPotts55 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Much of the text matches this, which states "all rights reserved". Unless that material is removed in the next day or two, I'll come back do the job possibly by deleting more than a more-knowledgeable person might salvage. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the history section was added initially in Dec 2008; the material at the start to the second paragraph of the Pre-WWII section was initially introduced with these edits in June 2009, and reworked into their rather clumsy form with these edits also in June 2009.

The text appears to have developed organically here. If there's a copyvio, it's likely to be the other way. Guettarda (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agroecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060422150352/http://www.agroecology.org/ to http://www.agroecology.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarification question?

There's a lot of overlap between organic farming, permaculture, and agroecology. There were several spots where this article seemed to confuse the three distinct disciplines that should be clarified. I lack the knowledge to make those distinctions, but it seems that some clarification is needed on the differences and similarities between the philosophies.

--Hollyda31 (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to anger anybody, but, secretly, I think "Agroecology" is pretty much the same as Sustainable agriculture. Feel free to prove me wrong though, cause I just might be.

I'm from South America, and the word "Ecology" is VERY big here, and has been, since probably the early 90's. I think we use it as much as other words like "sustainable", and maybe even more so, compared to the US and such.

That's probably why we end up with articles like these, which techncally could be maybe merged with the one on S. Agriculture, a term which we, otherwise, don't use as much, and probably would find kinda boring sounding and too intellectual to use on a daily basis. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Agroecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160522154628/http://futureoffood.org/pdfs/Coventry_University_2013_Maintstreaming_Agroecology.pdf to http://futureoffood.org/pdfs/Coventry_University_2013_Maintstreaming_Agroecology.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050405222258/http://www.agroeco.org/ to http://agroeco.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone in 2008 does not know what they are talking about

Someone seems to believe that agroecology is some kind of method or belief system. It isn't, it is a science: the ecology of farming. We have 3 good references for that, if not more. The entire section below does not establish that no-tillage is any more or less interesting to study the ecology of. All the references are about other topics, and the text/ref.s should go there: conservation agriculture, sustainable agriculture, no-tillage Leo Breman (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Views on no-till farming

No-tillage is one of the components of conservation agriculture practices and is considered more environmental friendly than complete tillage. There is a general consensus that no-till can increase carbon content of topsoils, especially when combined with cover crops, but whether this improves the function of soils as a carbon sink is contested.

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

Not all crops are suitable for no-till agriculture. 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. Also, crops which harvestable portion grows underground can have better results with strip-tillage, 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, 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.

In places with rigorous winter, untilled soil can take longer to warm and dry in spring, which may delay planting to less ideal dates. Another factor to be considered is that organic residue from the prior year's crops lying 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.

References

Further Reading or External Links additions?

Seems an Agroecology journal should be included somewhere: Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/wjsa21/current — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.237.137.164 (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Added more to Social Movements

There is a deep emphasis on social justice in agroecology. I expanded on the feminist agroecology movement, as pushed by organizations such as the UN CFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mebhatia (talk • contribs) 02:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)