Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
fertilizers and pesticides. In addition, it relies on subsidies and price support, has an increasing
negative impact on the environment as evidenced by the loss of species, habitat destruction,
soil depletion, consumption of fossil fuels and water-use at unsustainable rates, and contrib‐
utes to air and water pollution and risks to human health [17].
Notwithstanding the difficulties involved in defining sustainable agriculture, given the threat
posed by conventional agriculture, scholars still continue to work to define and clarify the
concept. For example, Ikerd [18] proposed the following definition: “…capable of maintaining
its productivity and usefulness to society over the long run…it must be environmentally-
sound, resource conserving, economically viable and socially supportive, and commercially
competitive” (p.30). In a later work Ikerd argued that sustainability should be thought of as a
goal to be achieved rather than a static concept with a fixed definition. Even though Ikerd's
view has considerable intuitive appeal, we believe that having a working definition clarifies
what a concept represents and provides the information needed for identifying its constituent
elements and distinguishing it from other concepts. Description of an object or thing provides
insight into the nature of what that thing is and what it can do. Since what a thing can do
depends on what it is, insights into its nature enables us to hypothesize about potential courses
of action regarding that thing. Or, put another way, insights developed from clarifying the
definition of a sustainable agricultural production system enables us to design courses of action
to attain a sustainable food production system.
In this chapter, we draw on Ikerd's definition and the definition of sustainable development
proposed by [19]. We define a sustainable agricultural production system as the practice of
agriculture to produce food and fiber that meets the needs of the current population without
compromising the capacity of the ecological capital, on which it depends, to support the needs
of future populations. This means the nutritional, recreational and fiber needs of current
populations must be met within the ecological limits of our natural resource base (ecological
capital). The primary elements making up our definition are: (1) need, (2) time, (3) ecological
capital, (4) equity, (5) population and (6) practice. From our perspective, the first element,
“need” entails consuming resources to satisfy a physiological or physical requirement over
time. Technically, a need is a necessity that is not satisfied in a single instance; it is a continuing
requirement. In this sense, a sustainable agricultural system is one that is capable of persisting
through time to meet current and future needs. The second element, “time” is a key concept,
because sustaining anything means making sure that the particular thing persists through
time. In the case of a sustainable agricultural system, it means managing our relationship with
the ecological capital in such a manner that it will continue to meet our needs and the needs
of future generations. The third element in our definition, “ecological capital,” represents the
resource base or the stock of natural assets that support life and food and fiber production.
Our definition of ecological capital varies slightly from that offered by [1]. In our definition,
we emphasize the biological base (the ecosystem) from which all natural services and goods
are derived. Wright [1], on the other hand, defines it as the sum of goods and services provided
by natural and managed ecosystems (agriculture) that are essential to human life and well-
being. We chose to use the ecosystem or biological base because if the ecosystem is degraded
