Talk:Agroecology

message: I personally don't agree on the sentence:
"use of genetically modified organisms and artificially selected crops[1] meanwhile agroecology tends to minimize the human impact."
Simply because a "crop" is inherently artificially selected. Neither maize, or wheat, or rice, or tomato, and so on, exist naturally as such. An agro-ecosystem is artificial by definition, and its biodiversity is not natural. Therefore, I don't see how the use of new developed varieties as well as of genetically modified crops can be considered wrong. Agro-ecology, in fact, should be focused on minimizing the effect of human impact. Not the impact itself, since there is no "agro" at all without human activity. 
New artificially selected crop varieties as well as genetically improved plants, I believe, should be taken seriously into consideration as effective tools for improving agriculture sustainability, without any ideological prejudice. Agriculture has never been and never will be "natural".
Paolo Voltolina, Ph.D.
Plant and Agriculture Biotechnologist
:I don't think most agroecologists are opposed to artifically selected crops either. Rather, they'd like to make us of plant breeding. They generally don't agree with genetic engineering, as that's 'unnatural' compared to the artifical selection of plant breeding. By the way, remember to try and sign your posts. ImperfectlyInformed (ImperfectlyInformed) 10:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagreement

message: I'm going to make some changes on this article and bring it up to presentable status. ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gonna try to spruce this up

message: group of agroecology students working on this and related sites- working on wording and information pretty carefully, so if you have an issue with anything left on the site, please discuss here. Hysilvinia (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing these include the IP editors. Could they try making accounts? You know, you could actually copy the page into a subpage draft, and then copy the thing in. Perhaps /AgroecologyDraft. II | (t - c) 01:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please edit the draft in the interests of making the history of the actual article not unmanageably long. Please? II | (t - c) 01:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd just prefer that you worked on that subpage if you're doing to do a bunch of edits without edit summaries or minor tags. It's nice to be able to scan the history of the article quickly. II | (t - c) 19:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: working

message: If anyone looks at this after the fact, I couldn't track down a citation for Buttel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertoch (talk • contribs) 06:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Interesting letter in Nature recently. II | (t - c) 19:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applying ecological engineering 

message: Under the heading, 'The science of agroecology,' we have:
Agroecologists study a variety of agroecosystems, and the field of agroecology is not associated with any one particular method of farming, whether it be organic, conventional, intensive or extensive. Furthermore, it is not defined by certain management practices, such as the use of natural enemies in place of insecticides, or polyculture in place of monoculture. Additionally, agroecologists do not unanimously oppose technology or inputs in agriculture but instead assess how, when, and if technology can be used in conjunction with natural, social and human assets[1].
These are important distinctions; organic-extensive-natural enemy-polyculture-low input-style agriculture was what I was attempting to look up and this is probably true for a good many other people who come to this entry on agroecology. Maybe it would be good to name the single topic that emphasizes these things...is there one? I'll admit for a little while I did think that was what agroecology was all about, as a matter of fact I am reading a textbook right now (Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture by Stephen R. Gliessman, published 1998, Sleeping Bear Press) that explains agroecology as just this sort of thing you guys are saying it is not. What's the deal? Is there indeed a general consensus on the above quote and, if so, why the seemingly common misconception? 
Help me out, thanks.
Pandim (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Mischaracterization of Agroecology  

message: An addition to the section on why agroecologists might not recommend not-till is that conservation agriculture in the US generally refers to using a “burn-down” herbicide such as round-up (glyphosate) and the need to use round-up ready seeds. This is one of the main reasons no-till is often associated with increased chemical use in comparison to traditional tillage based methods of crop production and is not considered organic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPotts55 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggested addition to why agroecologists might not recommend no-till 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Agroecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060422150352/http://www.agroecology.org/ to http://www.agroecology.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Agroecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160522154628/http://futureoffood.org/pdfs/Coventry_University_2013_Maintstreaming_Agroecology.pdf to http://futureoffood.org/pdfs/Coventry_University_2013_Maintstreaming_Agroecology.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050405222258/http://www.agroeco.org/ to http://agroeco.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Someone seems to believe that agroecology is some kind of method or belief system. It isn't, it is a science: the ecology of farming. We have 3 good references for that, if not more. The entire section below does not establish that no-tillage is any more or less interesting to study the ecology of. All the references are about other topics, and the text/ref.s should go there: conservation agriculture, sustainable agriculture, no-tillage    Leo Breman (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone in 2008 does not know what they are talking about 

message: Seems an Agroecology journal should be included somewhere:
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems
https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/wjsa21/current  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.237.137.164 (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading or External Links additions? 

message: There is a deep emphasis on social justice in agroecology. I expanded on the feminist agroecology movement, as pushed by organizations such as the UN CFS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mebhatia (talk • contribs) 02:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added more to Social Movements