Skip to main content Accesibility Help

Principles of integrated agricultural systems: Introduction to processes and definition

  • John R. Hendrickson (a1), J.D. Hanson (a1), Donald L. Tanaka (a1) and Gretchen Sassenrath (a2)

Agriculture has been very successful in addressing the food and fiber needs of today's world population. However, there are increasing concerns about the economic, environmental and social costs of this success. Integrated agricultural systems may provide a means to address these concerns while increasing sustainability. This paper reviews the potential for and challenges to integrated agricultural systems, evaluates different agricultural systems in a hierarchical systems framework, and provides definitions and examples for each of the systems. This paper also describes the concept of dynamic-integrated agricultural systems and calls for the development of principles to use in developing and researching integrated agricultural systems. The concepts in this paper have arisen from the first in a series of planned workshops to organize common principles, criteria and indicators across physiographic regions in integrated agricultural systems. Integrated agricultural systems have multiple enterprises that interact in space and time, resulting in a synergistic resource transfer among enterprises. Dynamic-integrated agricultural systems have multiple enterprises managed in a dynamic manner. The key difference between dynamic-integrated agricultural systems and integrated agricultural systems is in management philosophy. In an integrated agricultural system, management decisions, such as type and amount of commodities to produce, are predetermined. In a dynamic-integrated system, decisions are made at the most opportune time using the best available knowledge. We developed a hierarchical scheme for agricultural systems ranging from basic agricultural production systems, which are the simplest system with no resource flow between enterprises, to dynamic-integrated agricultural systems. As agricultural systems move up in the hierarchy, their complexity, amount of management needed, and sustainability also increases. A key aspect of sustainability is the ability to adapt to future challenges. We argue that sustainable systems need built-in flexibility to achieve this goal.

Corresponding author
*Corresponding author:
Hide All
1 FAOSTAT data. 2005. Available at Web site (updated March 2005).
2 Ruttan, V.W. 1999. The transition to agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96:59605967.
3 Trewavas, A. 2002. Malthus foiled again and again. Nature 418:668670.
4 Huang, J., Pray, C., and Rozelle, S. 2002. Enhancing the drops to feed the poor. Nature 418:678684.
5 Brummer, E.C. 1998. Diversity, stability and sustainable American agriculture. Agronomy Journal 90:12.
6 Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., and Polasky, S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671677.
7 Krall, J.M. and Schuman, G.E. 1996. Integrated dryland crop and livestock production systems on the Great Plains: extent and outlook. Journal of Production Agriculture 9:187191.
8 Heitschmidt, R.K., Short, R.E., and Grings, E.E. 1996. Ecosystems, sustainability, and animal agriculture. Journal of Animal Science 74:13951405.
9 Roberts, M.J., Osteen, C., and Soule, M. 2004. Risk, Government Programs, and the Environment. United States Department of Agriculture–Economic Research Service, Technical Bulletin No. 1908. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
10 Hoppe, R.A. and Korb, P. 2005. Large and small farms: trends and characteristics. In: Banker, D.E. and MacDonald, J.M. (eds). Structural and Financial Characteristics of U.S. Farms: 2004 Family Farm Report. United States Department of Agriculture–Economic Research Service, Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 797. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, p. 521.
11 Covey, T., Green, R., Jones, C., Johnson, J., Morehart, M., Williams, R., McGath, C., Mishra, A., and Strickland, R. 2005. Agricultural Income and Finance Outlook. Electronic Outlook Report from the Economic Research Service. AIS-83. Available at Web site (accessed 7 November 2005).
12 Entz, M.H., Baron, V.S., Carr, P.M., Meyer, D.W., Smith, S.R. Jr, and McCaughey, W.P. 2002. Potential of forages to diversify cropping systems in the Northern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal 94:240250.
13 Schiere, J.B., Ibrahim, M.N.M., and van Keulen, H. 2002. The role of livestock for sustainability in mixed farming: criteria and scenario studies under varying resource allocation. Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment 90:139153.
14 Entz, M.H., Bullied, W.J., and Katepa-Mupondwa, F. 1995. Rotational benefits of forage crops in Canadian prairie cropping systems. Journal of Production Agriculture 8:521529.
15 Krupinsky, J.M., Bailey, K.L., McMullen, M.P., Gossen, B.D., and Turkington, T.K. 2002. Managing plant disease risk in diversified cropping systems. Agronomy Journal 94:198209.
16 Honeyman, M.S. 1996. Sustainability issues of U.S. swine production. Journal of Animal Science 74:14101417.
17 Oltjen, J.W. and Beckett, J.L. 1996. Role of ruminant livestock in sustainable agricultural systems. Journal of Animal Science 74:14061409.
18 Dimitri, C., Effland, A., and Conklin, N. 2005. The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy. Economic Research Service-United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Information Bulletin No. 3.
19 Eltun, R., Korsæth, A., and Nordheim, O. 2002. A comparison of environmental, soil fertility, yield, and economical effects in six cropping systems based on an 8-year experiment in Norway. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 90:155168.
20 Haynes, R.J. and Francis, O.S. 1990. Effects of mixed cropping farming systems on changes in soil properties on the Canterbury Plains. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 14:7381.
21 Coon, R.C., Leistritz, F.L., and Hertsgaard, T.A. 1986. Composition of North Dakota's Economic Base: A Regional Analysis. Department of Agricultural Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.
22 Luna, J., Allen, V., Fontenot, J., Daniels, L., Vaughan, D., Hagood, S., Taylor, D., and Laub, C. 1994. Whole farm systems research: an integrated crop and livestock systems comparison study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 9:5763.
23 Pannell, D.J. 1999. On the estimation of on-farm benefits of agricultural research. Agricultural Systems 61:123134.
24 Kates, R.W. and Parris, T.M. 2003. Long-term trends and a sustainability transition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100:80628067.
25 Kemp, D.R., Girdwood, J., Parton, K.A., and Charry, A.A. 2004. Farm management: rethinking directions. AFBM Journal 1:3644.
26 Westcott, P.C. and Young, C.E. 2000. U.S. farm program benefits: links to planting decisions and agricultural markets. Economic Research Service–US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Outlook October issue. p. 1014.
27 Young, C.E. and Westcott, P.C. 2000. How decoupled is U.S. agricultural support for major crops. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82:762767.
28 Westcott, P.C., Young, C.E., and Price, J.M. 2002. The 2002 Farm Act: Provisions and Implications for Commodity Markets. Electronic Outlook Report from the Economic Research Service. Available at Web site (accessed 8 November 2005).
29 Tanaka, D.L., Krupinsky, J.M., Liebig, M.A., Merrill, S.D., Ries, R.E., Hendrickson, J.R., Johnson, H.A., and Hanson, J.D. 2002. Dynamic cropping systems: an adaptable approach to crop production in the Great Plains. Agronomy Journal 94:957961.
30 Wagner, W.C. 1999. Sustainable agriculture: how to sustain a production system in a changing environment. International Journal for Parasitology 29:15.
31 Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4:390405.
32 Lyson, T.A. 2002. Advanced agricultural biotechnologies and sustainable agriculture. Trends in Biotechnology 20:193196.
33 UCSUSA. 2005. Available at Web site (revised 10 August 2005; accessed 21 September 2005).
34 Merriam-Webster Online. 2005. Available at Web site (accessed 9 November 2005).
35 Farm Credit Canada. 2005. Available at Web site (modified 5 July 2005; accessed 9 November 2005).
36 Powell, J.M., Pearson, R.A., and Hiernaux, P.H. 2004. Crop-livestock interactions in the West African drylands. Agronomy Journal 96:469483.
37 Hardaker, J.S. 2000. Some Issues Dealing with Risk in Agriculture. No. 2000–3. Working Paper Series in Agricultural and Resource Economics. School of Economics, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
38 Archer, D.W., Pikul, J.L. Jr, and Riedell, W.E. 2003. Analyzing risk and risk management in cropping systems. In Hanson, J.D. and Krupinsky, J.M. (eds). Proceedings of the Dynamic Cropping Systems: Principles, Processes, and Challenges. Bismarck, ND. p. 155164.
39 Morris, C. and Winter, M. 1999. Integrated farming systems: the third way for European agriculture? Land Use Policy 16:193205.
40 The World Publishing Company. 1958. Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition. The World Publishing Company, Cleveland, OH and New York, NY.
41 Armstrong, J.S. 2001. Introduction. In Armstrong, J.S. (ed.). Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Norwell, MA. p. 3.
42 Morwitz, V.G. 2001. Methods for forecasting from intentions data. In Armstrong, J.S. (ed.). Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Norwell, MA. p. 3356.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems
  • ISSN: 1742-1705
  • EISSN: 1742-1713
  • URL: /core/journals/renewable-agriculture-and-food-systems
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed