What is alternative agriculture?

Madden, J. Patrick

doi:10.1017/s0889189300002605

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are a plethora of descriptive names that might be given to the low‐external‐input, biologically diverse cropping systems examined in the WICST. A few examples include alternative (Crosson, 1989; Madden, 1989), low‐input (Weil, 1990; Liebman and Davis, 2000), integrated (Krall and Schuman, 1996), regenerative (Rodale, 1985), sustainable (Harwood, 1990), and organic (Rodale, 1990; Mader et al, 2002). Together they represent a spectrum that ranges from zero input of both manufactured fertilizers and pesticides to limited inputs of either or both.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organic and Conventional Production Systems in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trials: I. Productivity 1990–2002

Baldock²,

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A gronomy J our n al • Volume 10 0 , I s sue 2 • 2 0 0 8 ABSTRACT During the last half-century, agriculture in the upper U.S. Midwest has changed from limited-input, integrated grain-livestock systems to primarily high-input specialized livestock or grain systems. Th is trend has spawned a debate regarding which cropping systems are more sustainable and led to the question: can diverse, low-input cropping systems (organic systems) be as productive as conventional systems? To answer this question, we compared six cropping systems ranging from diverse, organic systems to less diverse conventional systems conducted at two sites in southern Wisconsin. Th e results of 13 yr at one location and 8 yr at the other showed that: (i) organic forage crops can yield both as much dry matter as their conventional counterparts and with quality suffi cient to produce as much milk; and (ii) organic corn (Zea mays L.), soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) can produce 90% as well as their conventionally managed counterparts. Th e average yields for corn and soybean, however, masked a dichotomy in productivity. Combining Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial (WICST) data with other published reports revealed that in 34% of the site-years, weed control was such a problem, mostly due to wet spring weather reducing the eff ectiveness of mechanical weed control techniques, that the relative yields of low-input corn and soybean were only 74% of conventional systems. However, in the other 66% of the cases, where mechanical weed control was eff ective, the relative yield of the low-input crops was 99% of conventional systems. Our fi ndings indicate that diverse, low-input cropping systems can be as productive per unit of land as conventional systems.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organic and Conventional Production Systems in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trials: I. Productivity 1990–2002

Baldock²,

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During the 1980s and 1990s, there were discussions suggesting that reintegrating crop and livestock enterprises was essential to a more sustainable agriculture. Several philosophical papers have been published on this concept 1 – 4 , as well as papers expressing the need for integrated crop/livestock research 5 – 9 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the future, new technologies will have to conform to the environments where they are used, not dominate them 8 . There is a need for more sustainable agricultural production systems that reduce production costs by minimizing the use of purchased inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, while decreasing adverse environmental effects 1 , 5 . Design of well-planned cropping systems that include legumes, with crops established by no-till seeding procedures, and where part or all of the grain is marketed through farm produced livestock should facilitate development of the unique and innovative production systems needed to make farms more profitable and sustainable 1 , 10 , 11 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated crop/livestock systems research: Practical research considerations

Tanaka

Karn

Scholljegerdes

2008

Renew. Agric. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are many reasons for the paucity of integrated crop/livestock research and associated publications. Integrated/crop livestock experiments that involve adequate treatments and replications, as perceived by both crop and animal scientists, require large numbers of hectares, many animals, considerable labor to conduct the research, substantial financial resources, and a commitment by Federal and State Research Agencies to fund such long-term research projects. To be truly integrated, crop/livestock research must be multidisciplinary, involving scientists of diverse training and experience with expertise to address various aspects of the research problem, and scientists must function as a cohesive unit or team. The prevailing attitude that all experimental data must be statistically analyzed to be of any value is also a detriment to integrated research. Statistical analyses of these projects may be quite challenging and require new or unusual approaches. Related to the prevailing need for statistical analysis is also the need for scientists to publish senior authored publications for career advancement. Conducting integrated research may not facilitate scientists' publishing the number and quality of publications required for them to meet these criteria. A further obstacle to integrated research alluded to above, involves the many experimental design compromises that must be made by cooperating scientists. Crop and soil scientists for example, use many treatments and replications with small plots, while animal scientists, by necessity, have experiments that involve relatively large numbers of hectares and animal numbers with relatively few treatments and replications. It is therefore extremely difficult to initiate such projects given these inherent differences in crop versus livestock research protocol, as well as to design effective experiments that will provide publishable data. Making compromises on the many factors relevant to integrated crop/livestock research while designing experiments that will provide solutions to pertinent producer problems as well as useful data that can be statistically analyzed and published is, therefore, extremely difficult.

show abstract

“…The phrase, "low-input/sustainable agriculture," was initially proposed by Dennis Oldenstadt (Madden 1989). Currently, LISA is used as an umbrella term to cover a diverse collection of farming practices (Francis 1990;Poincelot 1990).…”

Section: Journal Of Sustainable Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

Classifying Conventional and Sustainable Farmers

Youngs

Goreham

Watt

1992

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers often compare sustainable farms with conventional farms in order to better understand sustainable farming. Unfortunately, the literature lacks a standard set of criteria for classifying farms. The present research analyzed data from a survey of North Dakota farmers to empirically compare nine approaches to classification. These classifications were modestly intercorrelated and had similar relations to four farm/farmer characteristics (number of acres farmed, net income per acre farmed, views on farm policy, and number of organizational memberships), but the different classifications were not directly interchangeable and appear to reflect quasi-independent dimensions associated with chemical use and tillage practices. It does matter how you measure.Two approaches to farming are the focus of considerable attention in today's agriculture: low-input/sustainable agriculture (LISA)

show abstract

What is alternative agriculture?

Cited by 13 publications

References 1 publication

Organic and Conventional Production Systems in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trials: I. Productivity 1990–2002

Organic and Conventional Production Systems in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trials: I. Productivity 1990–2002

Integrated crop/livestock systems research: Practical research considerations

Classifying Conventional and Sustainable Farmers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About