Intensification for redesigned and sustainable agricultural systems
The future of farming
In the mid-20th century, food production from agriculture sharply increased worldwide; however, this was achieved through heavy use of agrochemicals. Extensive collateral damage from excessive use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers has occurred to the wider environment. This has led to biodiversity loss, pesticide resistance and the emergence of new pests, pollution and decline of freshwater supplies, and soil degradation and erosion, as well as direct harm to health. In a Review, Pretty examines the alternative approaches that can achieve sustainable intensification of farming systems by integrating pest management with agroecological systems to minimize costs, maximize yields, restore ecosystem services, and ensure environmental enhancement.
Science, this issue p. eaav0294
Structured Abstract
BACKGROUND
The mid-20th century brought agricultural transformation and the “Green Revolution.” New crop varieties and livestock breeds—combined with increased use of inorganic fertilizers, manufactured pesticides, and machinery—led to sharp increases in food production from agriculture worldwide. Yet this period of agricultural intensification was accompanied by considerable harm to the environment. This imposed costs on economies and made agricultural systems less efficient by degrading ecosystem goods and services. The desire for agriculture to produce more food without environmental harm, and even to make positive contributions to natural and social capital, has been reflected in many calls for more sustainable agriculture. Sustainable intensification (SI) comprises agricultural processes or systems in which production is maintained or increased while progressing toward substantial enhancement of environmental outcomes. It incorporates these principles without the cultivation of more land and loss of unfarmed habitats and with increases in system performance that incur no net environmental cost.
SI seeks to develop synergies between agricultural and landscape-wide system components and is now a priority for the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. The concept is open; emphasizes outcomes rather than means; can be applied to any size of enterprise; and does not predetermine technologies, production type, or design components. SI can thus be distinguished from earlier manifestations of intensification because of the explicit emphasis on a wider set of environmental as well as socially progressive outcomes. Central to SI is an acceptance that there will be no perfect end point. No designed system is expected to succeed forever, and no single package of practices is able to fit the dynamics of every ecosystem.
ADVANCES
Three nonlinear stages in transition toward sustainability have been proposed to occur: efficiency, substitution, and redesign. Although both efficiency and substitution are important, they are not sufficient for maximizing coproduction of favorable agricultural and beneficial environmental outcomes without redesign. Whereas efficiency and substitution tend to be additive and incremental within current production systems, redesign should be the most transformative. Redesign presents social and institutional as well as agricultural challenges.
It is now clear that SI is spreading to increasing numbers of farmers and is being practiced on a growing area of farmland. By 2018, it was estimated from these initiatives that across some 100 countries, 163 million farms had crossed an important substitution-redesign threshold by using SI methods in at least one farm enterprise, and over an area approaching 453 million ha of agricultural land. This is equivalent to 29% of all farms worldwide and 9% of agricultural land.
OUTLOOK
Pest management exemplifies the need for continuing active intervention for SI; the job is never done. Ecological and economic conditions will change, and agroecosystems will have to be adaptable in order to deliver a range of ecosystem services, including food production but also water and soil conservation, soil carbon storage, nutrient recycling, and pest control. Cooperation—or at least individual actions that collectively result in additive or synergistic benefits—is needed for SI to have a transformative impact across landscapes. Farmers will have to be given the confidence to innovate in a flexible way as conditions change. Every example of successful redesign for SI at scale has involved the prior building of social capital. Widespread adoption of IPM needs new knowledge economies for agriculture. Technologies and practices are growing, but new knowledge needs to be collectively created and deployed and needs to give equal emphasis to ecological and technological innovations. The concept and practice embodied in the SI model of agriculture will be a process of adaptation, driven by a wide range of actors cooperating in new agricultural knowledge economies.
IMAGE: FRANS LANTING STUDIO/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO
SI at the landscape scale.
In most landscapes worldwide, SI requires engagements by large numbers of farmers to deliver both productivity improvements and benefits to ecosystem services. Redesign will be a continuing effort of transformation and improvement.
Abstract
Redesign of agricultural systems is essential to deliver optimum outcomes as ecological and economic conditions change. The combination of agricultural processes in which production is maintained or increased, while environmental outcomes are enhanced, is currently known as sustainable intensification (SI). SI aims to avoid the cultivation of more land, and thus avoid the loss of unfarmed habitats, but also aims to increase overall system performance without net environmental cost. For example, large changes are now beginning to occur to maximize biodiversity by means of integrated pest management, pasture and forage management, the incorporation of trees into agriculture, and irrigation management, and with small and patch systems. SI is central to the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations and to wider efforts to improve global food and nutritional security.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References and Notes
1
In this paper, the term “pesticide” incorporates all synthesized pest, disease, weed, fungal, and other control compounds. There is also no single accepted terminology for grouping of types of countries. Terms relate to past stages of development (developed, developing, or less developed), state of economy or wealth (such as industrialized or affluent), geographic location (such as global south or north), or membership [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) or non-OECD]. None are perfect. Here, I have simply used “industrialized” and “less-developed” and acknowledge the shortcomings.
2
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), FAOSTAT Online database (FAO, 2018); www.fao.org/faostat/en.
3
D. Tilman, C. Balzer, J. Hill, B. L. Befort, Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 20260–20264 (2011). 10.1073/pnas.1116437108.
4
Government Office for Science, Foresight, The Future of Global Food and Farming (Government Office for Science, 2011).
5
D. Goulson, E. Nicholls, C. Botías, E. L. Rotheray, Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 347, 1255957 (2015). 10.1126/science.1255957
6
J. Rockström, J. Williams, G. Daily, A. Noble, N. Matthews, L. Gordon, H. Wetterstrand, F. DeClerck, M. Shah, P. Steduto, C. de Fraiture, N. Hatibu, O. Unver, J. Bird, L. Sibanda, J. Smith, Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio 46, 4–17 (2017). 10.1007/s13280-016-0793-6
7
G. R. Conway, The Doubly Green Revolution (Penguin, 1997).
8
NRC, Alternative Agriculture (National Academies Press, 1989)
9
NRC, Towards Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century (National Academies Press, 2010).
10
D. P. Garrity, F. K. Akinnifesi, O. C. Ajayi, S. G. Weldesemayat, J. G. Mowo, A. Kalinganire, M. Larwanou, J. Bayala, Evergreen Agriculture: A robust approach to sustainable food security in Africa. Food Secur. 2, 197–214 (2010). 10.1007/s12571-010-0070-7
11
K. Garbach, J. C. Milder, F. A. J. DeClerck, M. Montenegro de Wit, L. Driscoll, B. Gemmill-Herren, Examining multi-functionality for crop yield and ecosystem services in five systems of agroecological intensification. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 15, 11–28 (2017). 10.1080/14735903.2016.1174810
12
FAO, Save and Grow (FAO, 2011).
13
FAO, Save and Grow: Maize, Rice and Wheat: A Guide to Sustainable Crop Production (FAO, 2016).
14
IPES-Food, From uniformity to diversity: A paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems (2016); www.ipes-food.org.
15
J. Pretty, The sustainable intensification of agriculture. Nat. Resour. Forum 21, 247–256 (1997). 10.1111/j.1477-8947.1997.tb00699.x
16
Royal Society, Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture (Royal Society, 2009).
17
R. M. Gunton, L. G. Firbank, A. Inman, D. M. Winter, How scalable is sustainable intensification? Nat. Plants 2, 16065 (2016). 10.1038/nplants.2016.65
18
H. C. J. Godfray, J. R. Beddington, I. R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence, J. F. Muir, J. Pretty, S. Robinson, S. M. Thomas, C. Toulmin, Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818 (2010). 10.1126/science.1185383
19
P. Smith, Delivering food security without increasing pressure on land. Glob. Food Secur. 2, 18–23 (2013). 10.1016/j.gfs.2012.11.008
20
J. Pretty, T. G. Benton, Z. P. Bharucha, L. V. Dicks, C. B. Flora, H. C. J. Godfray, D. Goulson, S. Hartley, N. Lampkin, C. Morris, G. Pierzynski, P. V. V. Prasad, J. Reganold, J. Rockström, P. Smith, P. Thorne, S. Wratten, Global assessment of agricultural system redesign for sustainable intensification. Nat. Sustain. 1, 441–446 (2018). 10.1038/s41893-018-0114-0
21
T. Garnett, H. J. C. Godfray, 2012. Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture (Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, University of Oxford, 2012).
22
B. Phalan, M. Onial, A. Balmford, R. E. Green, Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: Land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333, 1289–1291 (2011). 10.1126/science.1208742
23
C. A. Hallmann, M. Sorg, E. Jongejans, H. Siepel, N. Hofland, H. Schwan, W. Stenmans, A. Müller, H. Sumser, T. Hörren, D. Goulson, H. de Kroon, More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLOS ONE 12, e0185809 (2017). 10.1371/journal.pone.0185809
24
C. A. Francis, T. E. Hansen, A. A. Fox, P. J. Hesje, H. E. Nelson, A. E. Lawseth, A. English, Farmland conversion to non-agricultural uses in the US and Canada: Current impacts and concerns for the future. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 10, 8–24 (2012). 10.1080/14735903.2012.649588
25
A. Buckwell et al., The Sustainable Intensification of European Agriculture (RISE Foundation, 2014).
26
UN Sustainable Development Platform. Sustainable Development Goals. (2017); www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals.
27
H. Sandhu, S. Wratten, R. Costanza, J. Pretty, J. R. Porter, J. Reganold, Significance and value of non-traded ecosystem services on farmland. PeerJ 3, e762 (2015). 10.7717/peerj.762
28
S. Hill, Alternatives 12, 32–36 (1985).
29
S. Hill, in Organic Farming, Prototype for Sustainable Agriculture, S. Bellone, S. Penvern, Eds. (Springer, 2014).
30
N. H. Lampkin et al., 2015. The Role of Agroecology in Sustainable Intensification (Organic Research Centre, 2015).
31
S. R. Gliessman, M. Rosemeyer, Eds. The Conversion to Sustainable Agriculture (CRC Press, 2009).
32
G. M. Gurr, Z. Lu, X. Zheng, H. Xu, P. Zhu, G. Chen, X. Yao, J. Cheng, Z. Zhu, J. L. Catindig, S. Villareal, H. Van Chien, Q. Cuong, C. Channoo, N. Chengwattana, L. P. Lan, H. Hai, J. Chaiwong, H. I. Nicol, D. J. Perovic, S. D. Wratten, K. L. Heong, Multi-country evidence that crop diversification promotes ecological intensification of agriculture. Nat. Plants 2, 16014 (2016). 10.1038/nplants.2016.14
33
J. Pretty, Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302, 1912–1914 (2003). 10.1126/science.1090847
34
FAO, Farmer Field School Guidance (FAO, 2016).
35
J. Pretty, Z. P. Bharucha, Ann. Bot. (Lond.) 205, 1–26 (2014).
36
J. N. Pretty, A. D. Noble, D. Bossio, J. Dixon, R. E. Hine, F. W. T. Penning De Vries, J. I. L. Morison, Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 1114–1119 (2006). 10.1021/es051670d
37
J. Pretty, C. Toulmin, S. Williams, Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 9, 5–24 (2011). 10.3763/ijas.2010.0583
38
J. Pretty, Z. P. Bharucha, Integrated pest management for sustainable intensification of agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects 6, 152–182 (2015). 10.3390/insects6010152
39
W. Settle, M. Soumaré, M. Sarr, M. H. Garba, A.-S. Poisot, Reducing pesticide risks to farming communities: Cotton farmer field schools in Mali. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 369, 20120277 (2014). 10.1098/rstb.2012.0277
40
S. K. Lowder, J. Skoet, T. Raney, The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Dev. 87, 16–29 (2016). 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.041
41
E. M. Tegtmeier, M. D. Duffy, External costs of agricultural production in the United States. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2, 1–20 (2004). 10.1080/14735903.2004.9684563
42
A. W. Leach, J. D. Mumford, Pesticide environmental accounting: A method for assessing the external costs of individual pesticide applications. Environ. Pollut. 151, 139–147 (2008). 10.1016/j.envpol.2007.02.019
43
A. W. Leach, J. D. Mumford, Pesticide environmental accounting: A decision-making tool estimating external costs of pesticides. J. Verbr. Lebensm. 6, 21–26 (2011). 10.1007/s00003-011-0674-7
44
S. Praneetvatakul, P. Schreinemachers, P. Pananurak, P. Tipraqsa, Pesticides, external costs and policy options for Thai agriculture. Environ. Sci. Policy 27, 103–113 (2013). 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.019
45
D. Norse, X. Ju, Environmental costs of China’s food security. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 209, 5–14 (2015). 10.1016/j.agee.2015.02.014
46
H. Andersson, D. Tago, N. Treich, Pesticides and Health: A Review of Evidence on Health Effects, Valuation of Risks, and Benefit-Cost Analysis (Toulouse School of Economics, WP TSE-477, 2014).
47
F. Gould, Z. S. Brown, J. Kuzma, Wicked evolution: Can we address the sociobiological dilemma of pesticide resistance? Science 360, 728–732 (2018). 10.1126/science.aar3780
48
C. Botías, A. David, J. Horwood, A. Abdul-Sada, E. Nicholls, E. Hill, D. Goulson, Neonicotinoid residues in wildflowers, a potential route of chronic exposure for bees. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 12731–12740 (2015). 10.1021/acs.est.5b03459
49
J. E. Losey, M. Vaughan, A.I.B.S. Bull. 56, 311–323 (2006).
50
P. Sukhdev, Smarter metrics will help fix our food system. Nature 558, 7 (2018). 10.1038/d41586-018-05328-1
51
S. Myrick, G. W. Norton, K. N. Selvaraj, K. Natarajan, R. Muniappan, Economic impact of classical biological control of papaya mealybug in India. Crop Prot. 56, 82–86 (2014). 10.1016/j.cropro.2013.10.023
52
K. A. Wyckhuys, W. Zhang, S. D. Prager, D. B. Kramer, E. Delaquis, C. E. Gonzalez, W. van der Werf, Biological control of an invasive pest eases pressures on global commodity markets. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 094005 (2018). 10.1088/1748-9326/aad8f0
53
D. G. Bottrell, K. G. Schoenly, Resurrecting the ghost of green revolutions past: The brown planthopper as a recurring threat to high-yielding rice production in tropical Asia. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 15, 122–140 (2012). 10.1016/j.aspen.2011.09.004
54
D. K. Letourneau, I. Armbrecht, B. S. Rivera, J. M. Lerma, E. J. Carmona, M. C. Daza, S. Escobar, V. Galindo, C. Gutiérrez, S. D. López, J. L. Mejía, A. M. A. Rangel, J. H. Rangel, L. Rivera, C. A. Saavedra, A. M. Torres, A. R. Trujillo, Does plant diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review. Ecol. Appl. 21, 9–21 (2011). 10.1890/09-2026.1
55
H. R. Herren, P. Neuenschwander, R. D. Hennessey, W. N. O. Hammond, Introduction and dispersal of Epidinocarsis lopezi (Hym., Encyrtidae), an exotic parasitoid of the cassava mealybug, Phenacoccus manihoti (Hom., Pseudococcidae), in Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 19, 131–144 (1987). 10.1016/0167-8809(87)90013-2
56
P. Kenmore et al., J. Plant Protect. Trop. 1, 19–38 (1984).
57
H. van den Berg, J. Jiggins, Investing in farmers—The impacts of farmer field schools in relation to integrated pest management. World Dev. 35, 663–686 (2007). 10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.05.004
58
K. L. Heong, M. M. Escalada, N. H. Huan, V. Mai, Use of communication media in changing rice farmers’ pest management in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Crop Prot. 17, 413–425 (1998). 10.1016/S0261-2194(98)00036-2
59
A. Braun, D. Duveskog, The Farmer Field School Approach (IFAD, 2009).
60
J. W. Ketelaar et al., in Agricultural Development and Sustainable Intensification (Routledge, 2018).
61
Z. R. Khan, C. A. O. Midega, J. O. Pittchar, A. W. Murage, M. A. Birkett, T. J. A. Bruce, J. A. Pickett, Achieving food security for one million sub-Saharan African poor through push-pull innovation by 2020. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 369, 20120284 (2014). 10.1098/rstb.2012.0284
62
C. A. Midega, J. O. Pittchar, J. A. Pickett, G. W. Hailu, Z. R. Khan, A climate-adapted push-pull system effectively controls fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith), in maize in East Africa. Crop Prot. 105, 10–15 (2018). 10.1016/j.cropro.2017.11.003
63
R. F. Pywell, M. S. Heard, B. A. Woodcock, S. Hinsley, L. Ridding, M. Nowakowski, J. M. Bullock, Wildlife-friendly farming increases crop yield: Evidence for ecological intensification. Proc. Biol. Sci. 282, 20151740 (2015). 10.1098/rspb.2015.1740
64
A. C. Franke, G. J. van den Brand, B. Vanlauwe, K. E. Giller, Sustainable intensification through rotations with grain legumes in sub-Saharan Africa: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 261, 172–185 (2018). 10.1016/j.agee.2017.09.029
65
M. Lechenet, F. Dessaint, G. Py, D. Makowski, N. Munier-Jolain, Reducing pesticide use while preserving crop productivity and profitability on arable farms. Nat. Plants 3, 17008 (2017). 10.1038/nplants.2017.8
66
FAO, Aquatic Biodiversity in Rice-Based Ecosystems (FAO, 2014)
67
T. MacMillan, T. G. Benton, Agriculture: Engage farmers in research. Nature 509, 25–27 (2014). 10.1038/509025a
68
A. Campbell, J. Alexandra, D. Curtis, Reflections on four decades of land restoration in Australia. Rangeland J. 39, 405–416 (2018). 10.1071/RJ17056
69
S. Spiegal, B. T. Bestelmeyer, D. W. Archer, D. J. Augustine, E. H. Boughton, R. K. Boughton, M. A. Cavigelli, P. E. Clark, J. D. Derner, E. W. Duncan, C. J. Hapeman, R. D. Harmel, P. Heilman, M. A. Holly, D. R. Huggins, K. King, P. J. A. Kleinman, M. A. Liebig, M. A. Locke, G. W. McCarty, N. Millar, S. B. Mirsky, T. B. Moorman, F. B. Pierson, J. R. Rigby, G. P. Robertson, J. L. Steiner, T. C. Strickland, H. M. Swain, B. J. Wienhold, J. D. Wulfhorst, M. A. Yost, C. L. Walthall, Evaluating strategies for sustainable intensification of US agriculture through the Long-Term Agroecosystem Research network. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 034031 (2018). 10.1088/1748-9326/aaa779
70
P. M. Rosset, B. M. Sosa, A. M. Jaime, D. R. Lozano, The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: Social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. J. Peasant Stud. 38, 161–191 (2011). 10.1080/03066150.2010.538584
71
A. J. B. Malabayabas, K. Kajisa, M. A. Mazid, F. G. Palis, D. E. Johnson, Impacts of direct-seeded and early-maturing varieties of rice on mitigating seasonal hunger for farming communities in northwest Bangladesh. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 12, 459–470 (2014). 10.1080/14735903.2014.927980
72
W. Zhang, G. Cao, X. Li, H. Zhang, C. Wang, Q. Liu, X. Chen, Z. Cui, J. Shen, R. Jiang, G. Mi, Y. Miao, F. Zhang, Z. Dou, Closing yield gaps in China by empowering smallholder farmers. Nature 537, 671–674 (2016). 10.1038/nature19368
73
C. Morris et al., Asp. Appl. Biol. 136, 19–26 (2017).
74
J. Poore, T. Nemecek, Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018). 10.1126/science.aaq0216
75
V. T. Kumar, Zero-Budget Nature Farming (Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2017).
76
Xinhua, CPC and State Council Guide Opinion on Using New Development Concepts to Accelerate Agricultural Modernisation and Realise Moderate Prosperity Society, (2016); http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2016-01/27/c_1117916568.htm.
(0)eLetters
eLetters is a forum for ongoing peer review. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed, but they are screened. eLetters should provide substantive and scholarly commentary on the article. Embedded figures cannot be submitted, and we discourage the use of figures within eLetters in general. If a figure is essential, please include a link to the figure within the text of the eLetter. Please read our Terms of Service before submitting an eLetter.
Log In to Submit a ResponseNo eLetters have been published for this article yet.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Science
Volume 362 | Issue 6417
23 November 2018
23 November 2018
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
This is an article distributed under the terms of the Science Journals Default License.
Submission history
Published in print: 23 November 2018
Acknowledgments
Competing interests: The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest regarding this research, nor funding or remuneration from consultancies or industrial links. There are no external funding sources for this paper nor paid consultancies for industry. J.P. is chair of the Kansas State University Sustainable Intensification Innovation Lab, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Altmetrics
Citations
Cite as
- Jules Pretty
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.
Cited by
- CMC based microcapsules for smart delivery of pesticides with reduced risks to the environment, Carbohydrate Polymers, 300, (120260), (2023).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2022.120260
- Unravelling global future scenarios in the perspective of bioeconomy planning, Biomass and Bioenergy, 168, (106670), (2023).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2022.106670
- Integrated Enterprise Input-Output and Carbon Emission Pinch Analysis for Carbon Intensity Reduction in Edible Oil Refinery, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, (2023).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2023.03.045
- Carbon for soils, not soils for carbon, Global Change Biology, 29, 9, (2384-2398), (2023).https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16570
- Beyond the boom-bust cycle: An interdisciplinary framework for analysing crop booms, Global Environmental Change, 80, (102651), (2023).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102651
- Flagship species and certification types affect consumer preferences for wildlife-friendly rice labels, Ecological Economics, 204, (107691), (2023).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107691
- Sustainable Agriculture and Cultivation Practices, Reference Module in Food Science, (2023).https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823960-5.00080-9
- Anaerobic digestate valorization beyond agricultural application: Current status and prospects, Bioresource Technology, 373, (128742), (2023).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2023.128742
- Evaluation of a subtropical maize-rice rotation system maintained under long-term fertilizer inputs for sustainable intensification of agriculture, Applied Soil Ecology, 184, (104772), (2023).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2022.104772
- Fuzzy logic indicators for the assessment of farming sustainability strategies in a tropical agricultural frontier, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 43, 1, (2023).https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00858-5
- See more
Loading...
View Options
Check Access
Log in to view the full text
AAAS login provides access to Science for AAAS Members, and access to other journals in the Science family to users who have purchased individual subscriptions.
- Become a AAAS Member
- Activate your AAAS ID
- Purchase Access to Other Journals in the Science Family
- Account Help
Log in via OpenAthens.
Log in via Shibboleth.
More options
Register for free to read this article
As a service to the community, this article is available for free. Login or register for free to read this article.
Buy a single issue of Science for just $15 USD.
RE: A Not Very Pretty Review of 'Sustainable Intensification' in Agriculture
An Unpretty Review of 'Sustainable Intensification' in Agriculture
Jules Petty's article seemed less a "review" than an opinion piece that contained critical omissions.
Mr. Pretty defined "sustainable intensification" thusly:
"…comprises agricultural processes or systems in which production is maintained or increased while progressing toward substantial enhancement of environmental outcomes. It incorporates these principles without the cultivation of more land and loss of unfarmed habitats and with increases in system performance that incur no net environmental cost."
There's nothing wrong with the sustainable intensification (SI) concept or its goals, but with the exception of a cursory nod to the Green Revolution's "new crop varieties" in the first sentence, Pretty manages to discuss the subject without a single mention of terms like "new genetic varieties," "genetic engineering," "GMO," "genetic modification," or "genetic improvement."
In a "review" of "sustainable intensification" in agriculture as Pretty defines it, we find that incomprehensible.
Pretty's thesis holds that "SI seeks to develop synergies between agricultural and landscape-wide system components." He continues: "Three nonlinear stages in transition toward sustainability have been proposed to occur: efficiency, substitution, and redesign. Although both efficiency and substitution are important, they are not sufficient for maximizing coproduction of favorable agricultural and beneficial environmental outcomes without redesign."
We find it puzzling that one can discuss "efficiency, substitution, and redesign" in agricultural practices without any mention of the critical contributions of recombinant DNA technology and gene editing to new, improved genetic varieties over the past three decades – rather like addressing those same qualities in home design without mentioning terms like roof or foundation. Specifically, the introduction of crop plants modified with molecular techniques of genetic engineering has made prodigious contributions to farm income and environmental benefits by means of changes in tillage practices, and pesticide and herbicide use.
Pretty's observation that SI "is now a priority for the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations is noteworthy, because UN agencies such as its Food and Agriculture Organization, also are notorious for their unwillingness to acknowledge the significant scientific, economic, and humanitarian contributions and future potential of genetic engineering in their reports and analyses.
Henry I. Miller, M.D.
Senior Fellow
Pacific Research Institute
San Francisco, CA
Phone: 650.906.9014
Email: [email protected]
Colin A. Carter, Ph.D.
Professor, Agricultural and Resource Economics
University of California, Davis
Davis, CA
Phone: 530.752.6054
Email: [email protected]