Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T06:53:23.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sustainable agriculture and the challenge of place

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

David Ehrenfeld
David Ehrenfeld
Affiliation:
Professor of Biology, Department of Horticulture and Forestry, Cook College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Get access

Abstract

Modern, conventional agriculture has generalized the technology of farming, minimizing the significance of the relationship between farmers and their particular land. This generalization undermines farm culture and impedes its transmission from generation to generation. To avoid making the same mistake, ecologists designing the new, lower input agriculture should: 1) reject any black box presentations of their systems that the farmer cannot understand and that interfere with the relationship between the farmer and the land; 2) make systematic efforts to rediscover traditional farm wisdom and incorporate it into the new system; 3) utilize academics in a major program of local, adult education for farmers; and 4) reorganize extension services to facilitate the lateral transfer of information from farmer to farmer, and develop methods of incorporating farmers into the agricultural research process at the planning stage.

Keywords

farmerextensionadvisortwo-way communicationindependent farm management
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , Fall 1987 , pp. 184 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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. Anon. 1986. 5 new places to see profitable farming. The New Farm 8(7):30.Google Scholar
2.Berry, W. 1977. The unsettling of America: Culture and agriculture. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
3.Berry, W. 1984. Whose head is the farmer using? Whose head is using the farmer? In Jackson, W. et al. , (eds.) Meeting the Expectations of the Land. North Point Press, San Francisco, California, pp. 19–30.Google Scholar
4.Ehrenfeld, D. 1986. Thirty million cheers for diversity. New Scientist 110:38–43.Google Scholar
5.Ehrenfeld, D. 1987a. Implementing the transition to a sustainable agriculture: An opportunity for ecology. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 68(1):5–8.Google Scholar
6.Ehrenfeld, D. 1987b. Beyond the farming crisis. Technology Review 90(5):46–56.Google Scholar
7.Geist, V. 1971. Mountain sheep: A study in behavior and evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
8.Jackson, W. 1985. New roots for agriculture. New edition. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.Google Scholar
9.Lasley, P., and Bultena, G.. 1986. Farmers' opinions about third-wave technologies. Am. J. Alt. Ag. I(3):122–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Logsdon, G. 1984. The importance of traditional farming practices for a sustainable modern agriculture. In Jackson, W. et al. , (eds.) Meeting the Expectations of the Land. North Point Press, San Francisco, California, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
11.Morgan, A. 1942. The small community. Harper, New York, New York.Google Scholar
12.Pimentel, D. et al. , 1973. Food production and the energy crisis. Science 182:443–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Piore, M. J., and Sabel, C. F.. 1984. The second industrial divide. Basic Books, New York, New York.Google Scholar
14.Rodale, R. 1986. Extension in reverse: Farmers lecture experts. The New Farm 8(6):26–29.Google Scholar
15.Roszak, T. 1986. The cult of information. Pantheon Books, New York, New York.Google Scholar
16.Wolf, E. C. 1986. Beyond the green revolution: New approaches for Third World agriculture. Worldwatch Paper 73, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar