[ECOLOG-L] Ecology and Agriculture Reasoning Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture
Ecolog: Malcolm is quite right about the need for a less self-righteous approach to issues, but there also could be a little more resiliency and a little less brittleness on the part of the offended as well. One can always take the road less-traveled, the high road, and respond fully and directly to statements with which one has alternative facts to bring to the table, rather than opinions. 1. Agriculture is anathema to ecology. 2. Agriculture is not anathema to ecology. One can list facts in support of each position, and thus bring discipline to the discussion. It leaves personalities out of the discussion, minimizing emotional scatter. WT - Original Message - From: malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture You might be surprised at the number of ecologists that have a very good understanding of agriculture, or even participate in it. I also recall during my undergraduate years that most agriculture students were concerned about the environment. They are land stewards you know. Also, many agriculture faculty that were not focused on agribusiness were working on environmental problems associated with farming. So the door swings both ways. Just because most of us depend on megafarming operations for our food, does not mean that we should simply sit back and ignore the industry. In fact, our dependence on these industries makes it even more critical that we recognize what problems exist and devise ways to deal with them. However, with politically driven agendas by megaindustrial farming operations that really hurt the majority of family farmers (not a new problem!),it is difficult for messages of sustainability and minimal impact to reach producers' ears without a pile of misinformation beating one to the punch. Comments such as the one you posted, however, are neither productive nor do they encourage discussion about these problems. Instead, they raise anger, create divides, and accomplish nothing. Unfortunately, our current climate is such that discussing matters in this way is not uncommon, thanks to regular shouting matches on television designed to push one agenda or another. IF your goal in your statement was to get people to read your post, you violated the first rule of argumentitive writing! You should draw the people in, not drive them away! Consider your audience. Your post just insulted a majority of folks on here, many of whom might have some common ground with your ideas. An alternative approach may have resulted in a lot of people reading your post through to the end. Build walls and a mystery grows about what is on the other side. Build windows, and you can see what might be going on in your limited view. Build doors, and you can go over and find out what is going on. Build enough doors and you might find no need for walls. Malcolm McCallum On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 9:07 AM, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G._Gramig?=ggg9...@yahoo.com wrote: I always wonder if all the high and mighty ecologists who look down their noses at agriculture like to eat food? And if so, are they eating grubs and berries from their pristine research sites or are they eating food that was produced by farmers? Unless these snooty ecologists are 100% in the grub and berry camp, I suggest that their denigrating attitudes about agriculture are laughably hypocritical. Furthermore, agroecosystems comprise a large percentage of the earth's total land mass. This is unlikely to change, especially given the enormous pressures on resources that will increase as the world's population continues to increase. Enlightened ecologists already recognize the enormous importance of agroecoystems for protecting resources and conserving what is left of biodiversity. Anyone who continues to spout the agriculture is anathema rhetoric is merely lagging behind the cutting edge of ecological thought, in my humble opinion. -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Texas AM University-Texarkana Fall Teaching Schedule: Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40; General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm; Forensic Science - W 6-9:40pm Office Hourse- TBA 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture
Fair Enough, Anathema was Fair Enough, Anathema was too strong a word choice to be applied to agriculture, in general. (I, too, once regarded you-tube as largely an entertainment medium, but since have learned that it is an encyclopedic video-graphic introduction to things I have yet to learn) Yet, aspects of agriculture are affecting atmospheric composition and bio-mediated, environmental services necessary for life, as we know it. But, agriculture is the holy grail that made human progress possible, as well. Agricultural necessity initiated the industrial revolution and advent of mining. But agriculture can be so much more, if we place more emphasis on understanding ecological linkages and attempt to collaborate with life-mediating processes instead of applying expensive, quick-fix herbicide/insecticide cocktails,-- I think we will do less damage, generally, if we try to mimic time-tested, natural processes. The internet essentially provides humans with what ants already have, but consider the huge costs required to keep it afloat! So, let's intensively study the interrelations of living things and apply what we learn to agriculture. The thoroughness of the plowing of the American Mid-West leaves very few examples of intact, tall and short-grass prairies – indeed what we have are brought about largely by restorative efforts, – and let's be thankful for that. Yet, if we look at negative anthropogenic effects to the environment, we actually began affecting Nature, with the transition from hunter/gathering to agriculture. Paleolithic man did, indeed, (from archaeological evidence) influence the relatively recent extinctions of the Ice Age mammoths, mastodons and great bison. We almost extinguished today's herds, and at the last minute, have relatively few genetically pure examples remaining. Commercial fishing is still a form of hunting/gatherng and, -- technologically is too, far advanced/successful, as it has reduced OCEAN fish stocks by over 75%. In the Middle Ages, the Black Death killed millions of Europeans. Not too many years later, we learned that we could control disease more effectively by confining human waste to water and treating such water. But, when we talk of preparing for accommodating billions more humans, -- and agriculture plays a huge role in this, there will need to be other ways to treat organic wastes and save finite supplies of non-polluted water. Today, there are myriads of integrative ways to solve problems and work profitable ways around obstructing bottlenecks. Passive solar, for example, can be used to dry, and mostly sterilize organic pollution, for fuel generation or soil organic (carbon sink) buildup. Soil scientists inform us that conserving fertile soils is important to national security. Yet, many nitrogenous compounds, generated by agriculture and water treatment, flow down the Mississippi river to spawn “dead zones” in the Gulf of Mexico each spring(I see this as an opportunity to grow algae and produce bio-fuel!). World-wide, dead zones are expanding in the oceans and they cover 70% of the planet. Why do we have an area of floating plastics the size of Texas? Can we make this into a resource to exploit? Today, I am concerned about contamination of sub-surface water supplies and the teratogenic effects of pesticide and industrial effluent on amphibians and fish. Negative effects on humans cannot be far behind. The “butterfly effect” allows for a myriad of life proceses inside organisms through complicated hormonal and organic processes to occur. But outside of organisms, unintended anthropogenic side effects are still having huge effects on planetary earth. I recall the human population time bomb essays in the sixties/seventies –- that if one had something he really wanted to do, then he should first address over-population, because that would effect all of his other plans. Today, I see man locked in a monumental struggle with his arch rival, Nature. But at the same, I am excited by the myriad problem-solving, profit-making, job-creating possibilities that exist if we explore them in a prioritized, biologically-mediated, integrative, collaborative, and thoughtful manner, for this ultimate phrase is the one characteristic of man that begins to measure up to what drives ecological processes every day. --- On Mon, 8/31/09, William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: From: William Silvert cien...@silvert.org Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Monday, August 31, 2009, 10:05 AM Wow, I have seldom seen such a high and mighty and snooty posting as this. I don't know of any ecologists who are against agriculture as such, although there may be some. I do know many who are concerned about agricultural practices that lead to land erosion, pollution of groundwater, dangerous reliance on
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture
Good point!agriculture is not onlt providing the food and fibre to sustain our life, but also stands an only interface between nature and society system that can balance them. As a matter of fact, many horobale ecologist like Eugene Odum learned that agroecosystem sciences (particular agroecology) would be a common interests between ecologists and agronomists. Songliang Wang, PhD Fujian agricultue and Forest University, China. Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:07:56 -0400 From: ggg9...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU I always wonder if all the high and mighty ecologists who look down their noses at agriculture like to eat food? And if so, are they eating grubs and berries from their pristine research sites or are they eating food that was produced by farmers? Unless these snooty ecologists are 100% in the grub and berry camp, I suggest that their denigrating attitudes about agriculture are laughably hypocritical. Furthermore, agroecosystems comprise a large percentage of the earth's total land mass. This is unlikely to change, especially given the enormous pressures on resources that will increase as the world's population continues to increase. Enlightened ecologists already recognize the enormous importance of agroecoystems for protecting resources and conserving what is left of biodiversity. Anyone who continues to spout the agriculture is anathema rhetoric is merely lagging behind the cutting edge of ecological thought, in my humble opinion. _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture
I guess there's always going to be varying points of view; in a biodiversity course I took a decade ago, agriculture was cited as the first volley of negative anthropogenic impacts to evolutionary biology, perhaps soon after the extinctions of the large Pleistocene mammals as a result of hunting/and the beginnings of animal husbandry. Industrial agriculture -- cattle feedlots and palm oil monoculture leave little in the way of opportunities for bio-diversity. I guess we are going to have to depend upon integrative/accomodative agriculture in the future. --- On Sun, 8/30/09, Madhusudan Katti mka...@csufresno.edu wrote: From: Madhusudan Katti mka...@csufresno.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Sunday, August 30, 2009, 8:50 AM Perhaps you are trying to be provocative... but why do you think that agriculture is anathema to ecology? On Aug 30, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Thomas Hardy wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S6kTlz6Mk4
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture
I always wonder if all the high and mighty ecologists who look down their noses at agriculture like to eat food? And if so, are they eating grubs and berries from their pristine research sites or are they eating food that was produced by farmers? Unless these snooty ecologists are 100% in the grub and berry camp, I suggest that their denigrating attitudes about agriculture are laughably hypocritical. Furthermore, agroecosystems comprise a large percentage of the earth's total land mass. This is unlikely to change, especially given the enormous pressures on resources that will increase as the world's population continues to increase. Enlightened ecologists already recognize the enormous importance of agroecoystems for protecting resources and conserving what is left of biodiversity. Anyone who continues to spout the agriculture is anathema rhetoric is merely lagging behind the cutting edge of ecological thought, in my humble opinion.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture
I always wonder if they they know the difference between ecology (the science) and environmentalism (the green advocacy movement). So true!!! I will always remember the first lecture for the first ecology course I took. The professor spent almost the entire hour driving home the difference between the science of ecology and the environmental movement. This is such a critically important point!
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture
I feel that agriculture shouldn't be anathema to ecology or the environmental movement. It is a quintessential setting in which to study how intensive agriculture affects not only biodiversity but ecological and environmental processes, e.g., trophic relationships, pollination, nutrient and water cycling, hog-nosed snakes, and so on. I feel ecologists must use this information to compare different types of agricultural practices in order to determine, among other things, which is the most sustainable, which lead to higher biodiversity, etc. Many agricultural practices are not only damaging to biodiversity (not to ecology or environmentalism) but are unsustainable for the long term for everyone, including the farmers themselves. Several of the world's aquifers are being depleted due to overpumping and many lands are becoming less productive despite our technological aims to the contrary. Of course, I eat some food produced by large scale monoculture growing corporations, but not if I have a reasonable choice. My point is that just because these agricultural products are consumed does not mean scientists should not study their effects or complain about unsustainable, destructive activities. No ecologist should simply embrace unnecessarily damaging practices because a few shareholders are profiting. Much of the world is clearly in need of more food, but some have too much. Over half of the U.S. population is considered obese. Political and socio-economic concerns may have more to do with world-wide food availability than ecological ones. I feel we all need to be careful not to look down our nose at agriculture in general but focus on which types of agriculture are necessary and sustainable, which promote biodiversity, and which do not. Great thread. ~ Frank Frank Marenghi, M.Sc. Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Delaware State University Dover, Delaware, USA Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:46:14 -0400 From: ggg9...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU I always wonder if they they know the difference between ecology (the science) and environmentalism (the green advocacy movement). So true!!! I will always remember the first lecture for the first ecology course I took. The professor spent almost the entire hour driving home the difference between the science of ecology and the environmental movement. This is such a critically important point! _ Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_faster:082009
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture
Wow, I have seldom seen such a high and mighty and snooty posting as this. I don't know of any ecologists who are against agriculture as such, although there may be some. I do know many who are concerned about agricultural practices that lead to land erosion, pollution of groundwater, dangerous reliance on monoculture, high costs in energy and water resources, and so on. Surprisingly there are both good guys and bad guys in all fields. So who are these guys who continue to spout the agriculture is anathema rhetoric? Or are they just some fiction that =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G._Gramig?= has decided to attack? Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G._Gramig?= ggg9...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture I always wonder if all the high and mighty ecologists who look down their noses at agriculture like to eat food? And if so, are they eating grubs and berries from their pristine research sites or are they eating food that was produced by farmers? Unless these snooty ecologists are 100% in the grub and berry camp, I suggest that their denigrating attitudes about agriculture are laughably hypocritical. Furthermore, agroecosystems comprise a large percentage of the earth's total land mass. This is unlikely to change, especially given the enormous pressures on resources that will increase as the world's population continues to increase. Enlightened ecologists already recognize the enormous importance of agroecoystems for protecting resources and conserving what is left of biodiversity. Anyone who continues to spout the agriculture is anathema rhetoric is merely lagging behind the cutting edge of ecological thought, in my humble opinion.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture
As a professor and applied ecologist AND having been raised on a family farm that my family still owns and operates I find this discussion typical of those who although, may have a theoretical understanding of ecological relationships, have little understanding of the real world relationships within which modern agriculture operates. I am not by any means defending all ag practices - but I am defending the farmers who put food on our tables - the vast, vast majority of them are not out on a mission to lay waste and havoc on our natural systems. They are trying to keep afloat economically and will do what makes economic sense for them to do. Governmental policies are the ultimate factors driving land use and ag practices and the conversion of native lands to the plow. Farmers are the proximate factors. Could things be done better? Of course. But producing food to feed our population has to be a high priority. K. C. Jensen, Ph.D. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences SPB 138D, Box 2140B South Dakota State University Brookings, SD 57007 (605)688-4781 (office) (605)690-6104 (cell) (605)688-4515 (FAX) wfs.sdstate.edu/wfsdept/faculty/kcjensen.htm 100% of the shots you don't take don't go in - Wayne Gretzky -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:06 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture Wow, I have seldom seen such a high and mighty and snooty posting as this. I don't know of any ecologists who are against agriculture as such, although there may be some. I do know many who are concerned about agricultural practices that lead to land erosion, pollution of groundwater, dangerous reliance on monoculture, high costs in energy and water resources, and so on. Surprisingly there are both good guys and bad guys in all fields. So who are these guys who continue to spout the agriculture is anathema rhetoric? Or are they just some fiction that =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G._Gramig?= has decided to attack? Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G._Gramig?= ggg9...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture I always wonder if all the high and mighty ecologists who look down their noses at agriculture like to eat food? And if so, are they eating grubs and berries from their pristine research sites or are they eating food that was produced by farmers? Unless these snooty ecologists are 100% in the grub and berry camp, I suggest that their denigrating attitudes about agriculture are laughably hypocritical. Furthermore, agroecosystems comprise a large percentage of the earth's total land mass. This is unlikely to change, especially given the enormous pressures on resources that will increase as the world's population continues to increase. Enlightened ecologists already recognize the enormous importance of agroecoystems for protecting resources and conserving what is left of biodiversity. Anyone who continues to spout the agriculture is anathema rhetoric is merely lagging behind the cutting edge of ecological thought, in my humble opinion.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture
My two cents to this discussion: I’ve seen much more frequently than I would like expressions of the type “…lets protect the ecology…” or “…such and such practice affects the ecology of…” Expressions such as these appear not only in popular outlets (i.e., magazines, newspapers) but also, unfortunately, in the peer-reviewed literature as well. This lack of distinction between ecology and environmentalism is both a curse and a blessing. A curse because the science is confounded with advocacy movements and “green” motivations. So, for example, when an ecosystem ecologist reports that a mono-specific crop has lower carbon sequestration potential than the native vegetation it replaced, he/she might be criticized as being anti-agriculture and worse, of being hypocritical because he/she includes that particular crop in his/her diet. But it is also a blessing (for the ecologist at the beginning, but also for ecology over the long-run) because it allows basic ecological research to be funded more easily, through its environmental implications (whether real or perceived). Being the way things are, right now it is very difficult to find a maecenas (public or private) that will fund ecological research if it does not have a direct application/implication towards solving one of our myriad environmental nightmares.
[ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S6kTlz6Mk4
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to Ecology, Consider Permaculture
Perhaps you are trying to be provocative... but why do you think that agriculture is anathema to ecology? On Aug 30, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Thomas Hardy wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S6kTlz6Mk4
