Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:55:05.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A hierarchical approach to sustainable agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2009

Richard Lowrance ,
Paul F. Hendrix  and
Eugene P. Odum
Richard Lowrance
Affiliation:
Ecologist with the Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Tifton, GA 31794.
Paul F. Hendrix
Affiliation:
Emeritus Director at the Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.
Eugene P. Odum
Affiliation:
Emeritus Director at the Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.
Get access

Abstract

“Sustainable agriculture” means many things to different people in agriculture. At least three different definitions of sustainability are available: sustainability as food sufficiency; sustainability as stewardship; and sustainability as community. Since increased human populations will cause demands for food to continue to grow in the foreseeable future, agricultural sustainability needs to be assessed in ways that will incorporate competing definitions. We suggest that analyzing agriculture as a hierarchical system is the appropriate way to incorporate different concepts of sustainability. Using this concept, we propose a hierarchical definition of sustainability. Agronomic sustainability refers to the ability of a tract of land to maintain productivity over a long period of time. Microeconomic sustainability is dependent on the ability of the farm, as the basic economic unit, to stay in business. Ecological sustainability depends on the maintenance of life-support systems provided by non-agricultural and non-industrial segments of a region. Macroeconomic sustainability is controlled by factors such as fiscal policies and interest rates which determine the viability of national agriculture systems. In our view, there are critical constraints to sustainability at different scales of the agricultural hierarchy. We propose that agronomic constraints are most important at the field scale; microeconomic constraints are dominant at the farm scale; ecological constraints override at the watershed or landscape scale; and macroeconomic constraints are foremost at the regional and national scale. In this paper, we describe the actions of these critical constraints, discuss interactions among various hierarchical levels, and propose ways that agricultural researchers and policy makers can integrate the various views of sustainability.

Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , Fall 1986 , pp. 169 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Allen, T. F. H. and Starr, T. B.. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for ecological complexity. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2.Avery, D. 1985. U. S. farm dilemma: The global bad news is wrong. Science 230:408–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Berry, W. 1984. The agricultural crisis as a crisis of community, pp. 219–226. In: Douglass, G. K. (ed.) Agricultural sustainability in a changing world order. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
4.Block, J. R. 1986. Commentary: Conserving soil for America's future. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 41:30–31.Google Scholar
5.Blosser, T. H. et al. 1985. Priorities for research, extension, and higher education. Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
6.JrBrown, G. E.. 1984. Stewardship in agriculture, pp. 147–158. In: Douglass, G. K. (ed.) Agricultural sustainability in a changing world order. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
7.Brown, L. R. and Wolf, E. C.. 1986. Reversing Africa's decline, pp. 177–194. In: Brown, L. (ed.) State of the world 1986. W. W. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
8.Campbell, C. A. 1978. Soil organic carbon, nitrogen and fertility, pp. 173–272. In: Schnitzer, M. and Kahn, S. U. (eds.) Soil organic matter. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Christensen, C., Kurtzig, M. E., and Dommen, A. J.. 1985. Agriculture in Africa and the Middle East. pp. 158–170. In: Marton, L. B. (ed.) U. S. agriculture in a global economy. USDA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
10.Douglass, G. K. 1984. The meanings of agricultural sustainability. pp. 3–30. In: Douglass, G. K. (ed.) Agricultural sustainability in a changing world order. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
11.Dover, M. J. 1986. Pesticide resistance and public policy. BioScience 36:78–85.Google Scholar
12.Ehrlich, A. H. 1985. The human population: Size and dynamics. Amer. Zool. 25:395–406.Google Scholar
13.Farrell, K. R., Sanderson, F. H., and Vo, T. T.. 1984. Feeding a hungry world. Report No. 76. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
14.Ferguson, B. K. and McAvin, M. J.. 1980. A method for predicting agricultural carrying capacity. Compost Science/Land Utilization 21:38–43.Google Scholar
15.Forman, R. T. T. and Baudry, J.. 1984. Hedgerows and hedgerow networks in landscape ecology. Environ. Management 8:495–510.Google Scholar
16.Gebhardt, M. R., Daniel, T. C., Schweizer, E. E., and Allmaras, R. R.. 1985. Conservation tillage. Science 230:625–630.Google Scholar
17.Guither, H. 1986. Developing policy for a resource-conserving agriculture: The Food Security Act of 1985 in perspective. Am. J. of Alternative Agriculture 1:39–42.Google Scholar
18.Haimes, Y. Y. 1977. Hierarchical analyses of water resource systems. McGraw-Hill, New York. 478 pp.Google Scholar
19.Hart, R. D. 1984. The effect of interlevel hierarchical system communication on agricultural system input-output relationships. Options Mediterraneennes Ciheam IAMZ-84-1. International Association for Ecology Series Study.Google Scholar
20.Kramer, R. A., McSweeney, W. T., Kerns, W. R., and Stavros, R. W.. 1984. An evaluation of alternative policies for controlling nonpoint pollution. Water Resour. Bull. 20:841–846.Google Scholar
21.Lowrance, R., Todd, R., Fail, J. Jr., Hendrickson, O. Jr., Leonard, R., and Asmussen, L.. 1984. Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. BioScience 34:374–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Magleby, R., Colacicco, D., and Thigpen, J.. 1985. Trends in conservation tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 40:274–276.Google Scholar
23.Nicholaides, J. J. III., Bandy, D. E., Sanchez, P. A., Benites, J. R., Villachica, J. H., Coutu, A. J., and Valverde, C. S.. 1985. Agricultural alternatives for the Amazon Basin. BioScience 35:279–285.Google Scholar
24.Odum, E. P. and Franz, E. H.. 1980. Whither the life support system? pp. 264–274. In: Growth without ecodisasters. Polunin, N. (ed.). MacMillan Press, London.Google Scholar
25.Odum, E. P. 1983. Basic ecology. Sanders College Publishing. New York.Google Scholar
26.OTA. 1986. Technology, public policy, and the changing structure of American agriculture. U. S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-F-285 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office). 374 pp.Google Scholar
27.Tangley, L. 1986a. Crop productivity revisited. BioScience 36:142–147.Google Scholar
28.Tangley, L. 1986b. Biotechnology on the farm. BioScience 36:388–390.Google Scholar
29.Thompson, R. L. 1985. The effect of monetary and fiscal policy on agriculture, pp. 314–321. In: Marton, L. B. (ed.) U. S. agriculture in a global economy. USDA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
30.Trimble, S. W. 1974. Man induced erosion in the Southern Piedmont. Soil Conservation Society of America. Ankeny, Iowa.Google Scholar
31.Tweeten, L. 1983. The economics of small farms. Science 219:1037–1041.Google Scholar
32.Wolf, E. C. 1987. Raising agricultural productivity. pp. 139–156. In: Brown, L. R. (ed.) State of the World 1987. W. W. Norton, New York.Google Scholar