Agroecosystem analysis: Difference between revisions

'''Agroecosystem analysis''' is a thorough analysis of an [[agricultural]] environment which considers aspects from [[ecology]], [[sociology]], [[economics]], and [[politics]] with equal weight. There are many aspects to consider; however, it is literally impossible to account for all of them. This is one of the issues when trying to conduct an analysis of an agricultural environment.

In the past, an agroecosystem analysis approach might be used to determine the [[sustainability]] of an agricultural system. It has become apparent, however, that the "sustainability" of the system depends heavily on the definition of sustainability chosen by the observer. Therefore, agroecosystem analysis is used to bring the richness of the true complexity of agricultural systems to an analysis to identify reconfigurations of the system (or ''holon'') that will best suit individual situations.

[[Agroecosystem]] analysis is a tool of the multidisciplinary subject known as [[Agroecology]]. Agroecology and agroecosystem analysis are not the same as [[sustainable agriculture]], though the use of agroecosystem analysis may help a farming system ensure its viability. Agroecosystem analysis is not a new practice, [[agriculturalists]] and [[farmers]] have been doing it since societies switched from hunting and gathering ([[hunter-gatherer]]) for food to settling in one area. Every time a person involved in agriculture evaluates their situation to identify methods to make the system function in a way that better suits their interests, they are performing an agroecosystem analysis.

It is difficult to discuss these differences without the aid of an example. Consider the case of a conventional (see [[conventional agriculture]]) apple farmer. This farmer may choose to change his farm to conform to the standards of [[USDA]] approved [[organic agriculture]] because he felt motivated by social or moral norms or the potential of increased profits or a host of other reasons. This farmer evaluated his situation and reconfigured it to try to improve it. Some might look at this situation and conclude that the apple farmer chose organic apple production because it is more sustainable for the environment. But, what if a few years later the farmer finds that he is struggling to make a profit and decides to go back to conventional agriculture? The farmer performed another agroecosystem analysis and arrived at a reconfiguration that some might see as unsustainable. This example illustrates how agroecosystem analysis is not required to lead a more environmentally sustainable form of agriculture. Agroecosystem analysis might produce a reconfiguration that is more economically sustainable or socially sustainable or politically sustainable for a farmer (or other actor). By definition, however, agroecosystem analysis is not required to produce an environmentally sustainable configuration for an agricultural system.

William L. Bland, from the [[University of Wisconsin–Madison]], developed the idea of a farm as a [[Holon (philosophy)]] This term, ''holon'', was originally introduced by [[Arthur Koestler]] in 1966, in which he referred to a ''holon'' as an entity in which it is a part by itself, a ''holon'', while contributing to a larger entity, which is also a ''holon''.<ref>* Koestler, Arthur, 1967. ''The Ghost in the Machine''. London: Hutchinson. 1990 reprint edition, Penguin Group. {{ISBN|0-14-019192-5}}.</ref> Bland develops this for an agricultural environment or [[farm]] as, "The farm holon is both the whole in which smaller holons exists, and a part of larger entities, themselves holons." This idea was expanded upon by Bland and Michael M. Bell [[University of Wisconsin–Madison]] in their 2007 article "A holon approach to agroecology,"<ref>*Bland, W.L. and Bell, M.M., (2007) A holon approach to agroecology ''International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability'' 5(4), 280-294. [http://www.drs.wisc.edu/documents/articles/bell/bland-bell-2007.pdf abstract available here] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120426051309/http://www.drs.wisc.edu/documents/articles/bell/bland-bell-2007.pdf |date=April 26, 2012 }}</ref> because it is difficult to account for boundary and change when using a [[systems thinking]] approach. One major difference between Koestler's holon and the holon idea developed for agroecosystem analysis is that the latter can only be defined as a holon if it has [[intentionality]].

The farm itself is a holon and within the [[farm]] holon, other holons exist. For example, a [[Livestock|farm animal]], the farm [[family]], and a [[farmworker]] can all be considered holons within the farm. Additionally, the farm is considered a holon which is in part connected to other holons such as the [[county]] in which the farm resides, the [[bank]] from which the [[farmer]] borrowed money, or the [[grain elevator]] where the farmer can sell goods. Things like the [[tractor]] or the [[barn]] are not holons because they lack [[intentionality]].

When conducting an agroecosystem analysis, the analyst should approach the farm as the farm itself and the "[[ecology of contexts]]" in which the farm and the farmer function. A "context" is anything that might influence functioning of the farm and cause it to change. According to Bland and Bell, examples of contexts include, "family, farm business, genetic heart disease, and spiritual beliefs." These examples illustrate the breadth of contexts that could influence why farmers do what they do. Bland concluded his model of a [[farm]] as a ''holon'' by stating, "A farm is not [[sustainable]] (disintegrates) when it cannot find an overall configuration that is simultaneously viable in all contexts."

There is no right or wrong way to evaluate an agroecosystem. It is important to identify all actors in a holon before beginning the analysis. When an analyst accepts the task of analyzing the agroecosystem, first and foremost, it must be approached as to incorporate all elements involved and should derive questions that should be answered. Questions such as:

*How does one quantify the sustainability of the farm holon (economic, social, political, ecological and/or other)?

*How does the farmer or farm family perceive an agroecosystem?

These are the types of questions an analyst could consider. There are no preset questions to ask, and usually more questions are derived than answered. However, the most important task an analysts can do, is to start the analysis with an open mind and under no presumptions about what is and is not sustainable for the farm holon.

J. Visser of [[Dordt College]] uses a diagram, "Wealth Creation Wheel"<ref>*[http://cari.unl.edu/Presentations/wealthwheel.pdf Wealth Creation Wheel] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080907235848/http://cari.unl.edu/Presentations/wealthwheel.pdf |date=September 7, 2008 }}</ref> to emphasize and account for the parameters of developing a thorough analysis. His diagram is more emphasized on [[economics]]; however, it is a useful tool to reference when starting to analyze an agroecosystem. His interest is to create a functioning wheel which will ''roll'' when all parameters are met equally. If one parameter is not functioning in context with the other parameters, then the wheel will be out of balance and ineffective, thus unsustainable. When referring to an [[agroecosystem]], if one parameter is out of balance, this could lead to an unproductive cropping season and loss of income and/or livelihood.

*Bland, B. 2005. A framework for enquiry into agricultural systems.

*Conway, G. 1990. Concepts. Ch 2. In Agroecosystem analysis for research and concepts. Winrock Int. Inst. for Agriculture. Morrilton, AK.

*Cronon, W. (1992) A Place for Stories: Nature, History and Narrative. Journal of American History 78, 1347-1376.

*Gell-Mann, M. (1995) Complex Adaptive Systems. In: H. Morowitz & J. Singer (eds.) The Mind, the Brain, and Complex Adaptive Systems, pp.&nbsp;11–23. Addison-Wesley, New York, NY.

*Gliessman, S. 2004. Chapter 2, Agroecology and agroecosystems. In D. Rickerl and C. Francis, (ed.) Agroecosystems Analysis. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.

*Gliessman, S. R. (2004) Agroecology and Agroecosystems. In: D. Rickerl & C. Francis (eds.) Agroecosystem Analysis, pp.&nbsp;19–29. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.

*Kirschenmann, F. Chapter 11, Ecological morality: a new ethic for agriculture. In D. Rickerl and C. Francis, (ed.) Agroecosystems Analysis. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.

*Vadrevu, K.P., Cardina, J., Hitzhusen, F., Bayoh, I., Moore, R., Parker, J., Stinner, B., Stinner, D., and Hoy, C. (2008) Case study of an integrated framework for quantifying Agroecosystem Health. Ecosystems 11, 2, 283-306.

*Wojtkowski, P.A. 2008. Agroecological Economics: Sustainability and Biodiversity. Elsevier Publishing, NY.

* [http://www.agroecology.wisc.edu/ University of Wisconsin–Madison Agroecology Graduate Program]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Agroecosystem Analysis}}

[[Category:Agroecology]]