Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-c8zdz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T02:27:01.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technology, complexity and change in agricultural production systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2008

G.F. Sassenrath ,
P. Heilman ,
E. Luschei ,
G.L. Bennett ,
G. Fitzgerald ,
P. Klesius ,
W. Tracy ,
J.R. Williford  and
P.V. Zimba
G.F. Sassenrath*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Application and Production Technology Research Unit, PO Box 36, Stoneville, MS 38776, USA.
P. Heilman
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, 2000 E. Allen Rd., Tucson, AZ 85719, USA.
E. Luschei
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, 1575 Linden Rd., University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
G.L. Bennett
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS US Meat Animal Research Center, PO Box 166, Clay Center, NE 68933, USA.
G. Fitzgerald
Affiliation:
Department of Primary Industries, Private Bag 260, Natimuk Rd., Horsham, VIC 3401, Australia.
P. Klesius
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Aquatic Animal Health Research Laboratory, PO Box 952, Auburn, AL 36830, USA.
W. Tracy
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, 1575 Linden Rd., University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
J.R. Williford
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Application and Production Technology Research Unit, PO Box 36, Stoneville, MS 38776, USA.
P.V. Zimba
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS National Warmwater Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS 38776, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: Gretchen.Sassenrath@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Technological advances have contributed to impressive yield gains and have greatly altered US agriculture. Selective breeding and directed molecular techniques address biological shortcomings of plants and animals and overcome environmental limitations. Improvements in mechanization, particularly of power sources and harvest equipment, reduce labor requirements and increase productivity and worker safety. Conservation systems, often designed to overcome problems introduced from other technologies, reduce negative impacts on soil and water and improve the environmental sustainability of production systems. Advances in information systems, largely developed in other disciplines and adapted to agriculture, are only beginning to impact US production practices. This paper is the fourth in the series of manuscripts exploring drivers of US agricultural systems. While development of technology is still largely driven by a need to address a problem, adoption is closely linked with other drivers of agricultural systems, most notably social, political and economic. Here, we explore the processes of innovation and adoption of technologies and how they have shaped agriculture. Technologies have increased yield and net output, and have also resulted in decreased control by producers, increased intensification, specialization and complexity of production, greater dependence on non-renewable resources, increased production inputs and hence decreased return, and an enhanced reliance on future technology. Future technologies will need to address emerging issues in land use, decline in work force and societal support of farming, global competition, changing social values in both taste and convenience of food, and increasing concerns for food safety and the environment. The challenge for farmers and researchers is to address these issues and develop technologies that balance the needs of producers with the expectations of society and create economically and environmentally sustainable production systems.

Keywords

technologysustainabilitytechnological driversgenetic improvementsmechanizationconservation systemsinformation systems

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 23 , Special Issue 4: Principles of Integrated Agricultural Systems , December 2008 , pp. 285 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2006. The FAOSTAT Database. Available at Web site http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
2 NASS. 2006. Prices received by Farmers, Indexes. Available at Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov/index.asp (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
3 Strauss, S. 2002. Best in breed ….. has nothing to do with biotech. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ontario. 26 January 2002. Available at Web site http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/No-Biotech-Best.htm (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
4 Naylor, R.L. 1996. Energy and resource constraints on intensive agricultural production. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 21:99–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Archer, D.W., Dawson, J., Kreuter, U.P., Hendrickson, M., and Halloran, J.M. 2008. Social and political influences on agricultural systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(4):272–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Cochrane, W.W. 1958. Farm Prices: Myth and Reality. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
7 Petroski, H. 1992. The Evolution of Useful Things: How Everyday Artifacts—From Forks and Pins to Paperclips and Zippers—Came to be as they are. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
8 Douthwaite, B., Keatinge, J.D.H., and Park, J.R. 2002. Learning selection: an evolutionary model for understanding, implementing and evaluating participatory technology development. Agricultural Systems 72:109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Hagel, J. and Brown, J.S. 2005. From push to pull—emerging models for mobilizing resources. Working Paper, October, 2005. Available at Web site http://www.johnseelybrown.com/pushmepullyou4.72.pdf (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
10 Hendrickson, J., Sassenrath, G.F., Archer, D., Hanson, J., and Halloran, J. 2008. Interactions in integrated agricultural systems: the past, present and future. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(4):314–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Sumberg, J. and Reece, D. 2004. Agricultural research through a ‘New Product Development’ lens. Experimental Agriculture 40:295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Flora, C.B. 2004. Agricultural change and rural development. Rural Development News 27(3):1–3. Available at Web site http://www.ag.iastate.edu/centers/rdev/newsletter/Vol27No3-2004/agchange.htm (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
13 Batz, F.-J., Peters, K.J., and Janssen, W. 1999. The influence of technology characteristics on the rate and speed of adoption. Agricultural Economics 21:121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Sassenrath, G.F., Hanson, J., Hendrickson, J., and Archer, D. 2007. Principles of dynamic integrated agricultural systems: lessons learned from an examination of Southeast production systems. In Bohlen, P. (ed.). Agro-ecosystem Management for Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability. Taylor and Francis/CRC Press, UK, in press.Google Scholar
15 Watson, R.T., Zinyowera, M.C., and Moss, R.H. 2006. IPCC Special Report on The Regional Impacts of Climate Change. An Assessment of Vulnerability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at Web site http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/regional/index.htm (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
16 Welch, R.M. and Graham, R.D. 1999. A new paradigm for world agriculture: meeting human needs. Productive, sustainable, nutritious. Field Crops Research 60:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 United States Bureau of the Census. 1975. Historical statistics of the United States: colonial times to 1970. Government Printing Office, Series C 55–62, p. 93–95.Google Scholar
18 Executive Summary of the EPA's Organophosphate Pesticides: Revised Cumulative Risk Assessment. 2002. Available at Web site http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/rra-op/Executive_Summary-pdf.pdf (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
19 Halloran, J.H. and Archer, D. 2008. External economic drivers and integrated agricultural systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(4):296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Brown, W.L. 1984. Hybrid vim and vigor. Science 845(9):77–78.Google Scholar
21 Tracy, W.F., Goldman, I.L., Tiefenthaler, A.E., and Schaber, M.A. 2004. Trends in productivity of US crops and long-term selection. Plant Breeding Reviews 24(2):89–108.Google Scholar
22 Myers, K.H. 1933. Methods and costs of husking corn in the field. Farmers' Bulletin 1715. USDA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
23 Kneen, B. 1999. Restructuring food for corporate profit: the corporate genetics of Cargill and Monsanto. Agriculture and Human Values 16:161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Benbrook, C. 2003. Principles governing the long-run risks, benefits, and costs of agricultural biotechnology. Conference on Biodiversity, Biotechnology, and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge held on 5 April 2003. Available at Web site http://www.biotech-info.net/biod_biotech.pdf (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
25 Chassy, B.M., Parrott, W.A., and Roush, R. 2005. Crop biotechnology and the future of food: a scientific assessment. CAST Commentary. QTA 2005-2 October 2005. Available at Web site http://www.biotech.ucdavis.edu/PDFs/CAST%20Report%20-%20Crop%20Biotechnology%20and%20the%20Future%20of%20Food%2011-05.pdf (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
26 DeGregori, T.R. 2004. Origins of the Organic Agriculture Debate. Iowa State Press, Ames, Iowa. p. 211.Google Scholar
27 Stabinsky, D. and Cotter, J. 2004. Rice: genetically engineered rice—not sustainable agriculture. Greenpeace International, The Netherlands. Available at Web site http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/genetically-engineered-rice-n.pdf (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
28 Pardo, R. and Calvo, F. 2006. Are Europeans really antagonistic to biotech? Nature Biotechnology 24:393–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29 Foote, R.H. 2002. The history of artificial insemination: selected notes and notables. American Society of Animal Science 1–10. Available at Web site http://bio.cc/Biohistory/artificial_insemination_of_livestock_1950.pdf (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
30 Thibier, M. and Wagner, H.-G. 2002. World statistics for artificial insemination in cattle. Livestock Production Science 74:203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Funk, D.A. 2006. Major advances in globalization and consolidation of the artificial insemination industry. Journal of Dairy Science 89:1362–1368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32 Mariola, M.J. 2005. Losing ground: farmland preservation, economic utilitarianism, and the erosion of the agrarian ideal. Agriculture and Human Values 22:209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33 White, W.J. 2001. Economic history of tractors in the US. In Whaples, R. (ed.) EH Net Encyclopedia. 15 August 2001. Available at Web site http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/white.tractors.history.us (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
34 Holley, D. 2000. The Second Great Emancipation: The Mechanical Cotton Picker, Black Migration, and How They Shaped the Modern South. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 McClintic, D. 2003. China's big dilemma. Available at Web site http://www.deere.com/en_US/ag/pdf/furrow/2003-summer-article.pdf (verified 6 June, 2007).Google Scholar
36 Lemann, N. 1992. The Promised Land: The Great Black Migration and How it Changed America. Vintage Books. p. 408.Google Scholar
37 Holley, D. 2003. Mechanical cotton picker. In Whaples, R. (ed.). EH Net Encyclopedia. 17 June 2003. Available at Web site http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/holley.cottonpicker (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
38 United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 1974. Statistics on Cotton and Related Data, 1920–1973. Statistical Bulletin No. 535. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
39 Grimes, W.E., Kifer, R.S., and Hodges, J.A. 1928. The effect of the combined harvester-thresher on farm organization in southwestern Kansas and northwestern Oklahoma. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station. Contribution No. 45. Available at Web site http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/historicpublications/pubsSC142.pdf. (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
40 Martin, S. and Cooke, F. Jr. 2002. Mississippi Delta cotton farm structure 2002. Delta Ag Econ News. Summer. 2002. Available at Web site http://www.msstate.edu/dept/drec/archive/delta_ag_econ_news/agnews8.htm (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
41 Martinez, S. and Stewart, H. 2003. From supply push to demand pull: agribusiness strategies for today's consumers. Amber Waves. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/Amberwaves/November03/pdf/supplypush.pdf (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
42 Martens, D.A. 2001. Nitrogen cycling under different soil management systems. Advances in Agronomy 70:143–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43 Martin, S.W., Robinson, J.R.C., Cooke, F.T. Jr, and Parvin, D. 2005. Managing tillage, crop rotations, and environmental concerns in a whole-farm environment. Crop Management. Online at http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/cm/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44 Osteen, C. and Livingston, M. 2006. Pest management practices. In Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 2006 Edition/EIB-16. p. 107–115. Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
45 Fuglie, K.O. and Kascak, C.A. 2001. Adoption and diffusion of natural resource conserving technology. Review of Agricultural Economics 23:386–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46 Napier, T.L., Tucker, M., and McCarter, S. 2000. Adoption of conservation production systems in three Midwest watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55:123–134.Google Scholar
47 Bosch, D.J. and Pease, J.W. 2000. Economic Risk and Water Quality Protection in Agriculture. Review of Agricultural Economics 22:438–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48 Soule, M.J., Tegene, A., and Wiebe, K.D. 2000. Land tenure and the adoption of conservation practice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82:993–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49 Baylis, K., Feather, P., Padgitt, M., and Sandretto, C. 2002. Water-based recreational benefits of conservation programs: the case of conservation tillage on US cropland. Review of Agricultural Economics 24:384–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50 Stafford, J.V. 2000. Implementing precision agriculture in the 21st century. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 76:267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51 Martin, S.W., Hanks, J., Harris, A., Wills, G., and Banerjee, S. 2005. Estimating total costs and possible returns from precision farming practices. Crop Management. Online at http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/cm/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52 Adrian, A.M., Norwood, S.H., and Mask, P.L. 2005. Producers' perceptions and attitudes toward precision agriculture technologies. Computer and Electronics in Agriculture 48:256–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53 Batte, M.T. 2005. Changing computer use in agriculture: evidence from Ohio. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 47:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54 Ikerd, J.E. 1993. The need for a systems approach to sustainable agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 46:147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55 Aldy, J.E., Hrubovcak, J., and Vasavada, U. 1998. The role of technology in sustaining agriculture and the environment. Ecological Economics 26:81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56 Hanson, J.D., Hendrickson, J., and Archer, D. 2008. Challenges for maintaining sustainable agricultural systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 23(4):325–334.Google Scholar
57 Hendrickson, J.R., Hanson, J., Tanaka, D.L., and Sassenrath, G. 2007. Principles of integrated agricultural systems: introduction to processes and definition. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 23(3):265–271.Google Scholar
58 Mayo, E., Knight, A., Clifton, R., Jackson, T., Johnstone, J., Furey, S., Lee, A., and Pomfret, C. 2006. I Will if You Will. Towards Sustainable Consumption. Sustainable Development Commission. Available at Web site http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=367 (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
59 Blair, D. and Sobal, J. 2006. Luxus consumption: wasting food resources through overeating. Agriculture and Human Values 23:63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60 Wilkins, J.L. 2005. Eating right here: moving from consumer to food citizen. Agriculture and Human Values 22:269–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61 Koc, M. and Dahlberg, K.A. 1999. The restructuring of food systems: trends, research, and policy issues. Agriculture and Human Values 16:109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62 Ehrlich, P.R. 1971. The Population Bomb. Ballantine Books, New York.Google Scholar
63 Rosegrant, M.W., Paisner, M.S., Meijer, S., and Witcover, J. 2001. Global Food Projections to 2020: Emerging Trends and Alternative Futures. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
64 Rosegrant, M.W., Cai, X., and Cline, S.A. 2002. World Water and Food to 2025: Dealing with Scarcity. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
65 Johnson, D.G. 1999. The growth of demand will limit output growth for food over the next quarter century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 96:5915–5920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
66 Trewavas, A.J. 2001. The population/biodiversity paradox. Agricultural efficiency to save wilderness. Plant Physiology 125:174–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67 Donavan, L. 2005. Permit sought for wind farm. Bismarck Tribune, Bismarck, North Dakota, 26 October 2005. Available at Web site http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2005/10/26/news/local/104446.txt (verified 5 September 2007).Google Scholar
68 Bricklemyer, R.S., Miller, P.R., Turk, P.J., Paustian, K., Keck, T., and Nielsen, G.A. 2007. Sensitivity of the Century model to scale-related soil texture variability. Soil Science Society of America Journal 71:784–792. Available at Web site http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/71/3/784 (Verified 5 September 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar