Whileas I agree that they interact with the environment and probably should know more about the natural world around them, giving farmers such knowledge would be quite impractical. I'd call farming a profession, a critical one if I may say so, but the control should not reside in the farmers themselves. The control should reside in laws that can tell farmers what they can do, can't do, and should do. The ecological vision should reside in said laws and as long as farmers respect them, their interaction with the environment won't have an excessively negative impact. Also, people who study agriculture (or other similar topics) at a bachelor and master level learn about ecological principles. These people should probably cover management's roles and organize the farming effort in order to optimize productivity with a keen eye to environmental problems.

Also what Vinay says is true but in my experience their visions tend to be limited. Farmers without control can make a great deal of damage to the environment. Some examples are the elimination of riparian vegetation near streams which result in water pollution; the reduction of connectivity and/or ecotones in an environment; idraulic captation from small streams in dry periods; and many more. I think the majority don't have a clear idea of the ecosystem concept outside of their field of work.

Farmers are true ecologist, naturalists and breeder. Most of the farmers from remote laces know the natural ecosystem very well. They also has a keen observation of their field and field crops. Many of them deserves to be classified under untrained ecologists as their profession needs all the basic scientific details of breeding, pollinators  as well as plant animal interaction.

Therefore ,they have not only vision but even care for natural disaster which is envisaged in near or long future due to climate change.

Whileas I agree that they interact with the environment and probably should know more about the natural world around them, giving farmers such knowledge would be quite impractical. I'd call farming a profession, a critical one if I may say so, but the control should not reside in the farmers themselves. The control should reside in laws that can tell farmers what they can do, can't do, and should do. The ecological vision should reside in said laws and as long as farmers respect them, their interaction with the environment won't have an excessively negative impact. Also, people who study agriculture (or other similar topics) at a bachelor and master level learn about ecological principles. These people should probably cover management's roles and organize the farming effort in order to optimize productivity with a keen eye to environmental problems.

Also what Vinay says is true but in my experience their visions tend to be limited. Farmers without control can make a great deal of damage to the environment. Some examples are the elimination of riparian vegetation near streams which result in water pollution; the reduction of connectivity and/or ecotones in an environment; idraulic captation from small streams in dry periods; and many more. I think the majority don't have a clear idea of the ecosystem concept outside of their field of work.

Dear All,

Farmers are various. Some are trained and have honourable knowledge, some are ignorant. The thinking ones know a lot of nature but they are not ecologists. Certainly, they should not to be.

Some farmers work on sustainability of agriculture and environment, some try to press even the last drop of life or yield without considering the future.

Farmers are people good and best as we are.

Traditional farmers have been and are practising ecologists. marginal farmers might understand ecological processes but survival is much more important to them than ecosystem care. Commercial farmers couldn't care less, too! 

In developed nations, government control tends to overwhelm private citizens. Remember that ecology is a growing study and much that is incorporated in traditional knowledge bases is being 'discovered' piecemeal by ecologists, so to take over the direction of agriculture is a responsibility which might be possible in some parts of the world, but would probably prove disastrous in other parts, where 'ecologists' tend to be career scientists making a career out of copy-pasting the work of others without bothering to even understand the content.

For some, farming is a profession, for others, a heritage, but for the majority of farmers (who live in developing nations), farming is the only means of survival.

I think many farmers have a great knowledge of ecological processes if they are themselves working the land and supervising the process. The rise of large industrial farms has greatly reduced the personal aspect and streamlined the process to be focused on efficiency rather than ecology, so employees here may not be as aware

At any rate, I have found that farmers (at least in the US) lack a knowledge of environmental law and ecological consequences in the long-term (particularly in the case of industrial farmers, who have not worked on the land for decades, as other small family farms have). A great example of this is the opposition to the Clean Water Act. 

http://www.rollcall.com/news/administration_and_farmers_clash_over_more_precise_clean_water_act-236228-1.html

So local experience is more important that theoretical knowledge in farming, accepting that local conditions are unique?  

This is a very interesting question. I mostly agree with Casali and in my opinion what actually needs to be strongly improved is a dialogue between farmers and experts in ecology. Probably it will take time. In my experiences with farmers, I noticed they have poor or no interest with environment. It is understandable since farming is an economic activity (as many others) and thus profits take priority over ecological issues. I am sure traditional farmers have different values and ideals but probably  at present time we must cope with more aggressive agricultural practices that undoubtely may impact stronger on ecosystems.

Farming should definitely minimize impact on water quality. Do water quality detectors exist to monitor agriculture practice at local scales, e.g. a sponge absorbing water placed in/near agriculture zones?

I agree with Clara Primante. This is a very interesting question. At first look it seems to be rather simple, but I feel it as a little provocative. At the beginning we all probably agree that farming without any basic ecological knowledge seems to be rather non sense activity (economy cannot be only one evaluating factor). But if we look deeper... Why farmers only? They are not only one group of environmental transformers. So, we all should to be more ecologically educated. How deep? Probably to this level - where we understand negative effects of our impact on nature and our responsibility for this. This all goes to the recognition of moral background of our activity in the environmental surroundings. Simple consumerism cannot be only on explanation of our many fatal environmentally decisions. We are not only owners of environment, even if we are protected by respective property, governmental and other law regulations. When we look at history of our "agricultural conquest" of nature, from simple lister to total soil overloading with artificial fertilizers, with total deforestation of huge parts of continents - it is rather very poor proof of our ecological thinking, and strong proof of our human conceit.     

Edward O. Wilson proved that everything in nature is interrelated. Therefore, farmers must by educated to be ecologists.

Improving the capacity of farmers to become ecologists especially when considering system interactions can only result in many positive outcomes for the farmer, community, and social-ecological systems in general. What I think would be rather important, is not just to educate farmers as ecologists but to combine ecology based and traditional farming i.e. combining scientific view with local and traditional views of farming. Both of these approaches come with different cosmology and can improve the outcomes of production and the impacts on the ecosystem. 

Farming can be different for each farmer. Farming can be just a profession to one, whilst it is a tradition and a legacy for others. 

Especially in the developing world, farming is a heritage. In very few/ rare circumstances do people engage in farming as a passion. And in my country the population that engages in professional farming does not even reach to approximately 1%.

It would be great if farmers were ecologists but that is impractical. All we need is efficient, sustainable agricultural and rural extension services to educate farmers on good farming practices. Every village, if possible, needs to have demonstration plots that will be used in teaching good farming skills and transfer of knowledge.

Absolutely - farmers should be educated - there should maybe even be a requriement on a *farming licence* - as a concept similar to a driving licence. Surely there are things that farmers should - *must* - know. However perhaps *farmer* is too broad. As even when it comes to *driving licence* there is more than one. Different type of farming maybe needs somewhat different type of education and so "driving licence" (farming licence).

I do not believe that a comment that it is impractical is relevant. Because you could say the same thing about driving licence. It is impractical to require people who drive cars to have driving licence also. So what? The point is that from a societal perspective - including respect for other farmers - there may very well be a lot of value gained for most stakeholders involved. It is not enough to have local knowledge - when the consequences can go far beyond. And that they certainly do.

Farmers in our country (Those faemers who i see near my suuroundings) have a uniqe relationship with the mother nature. I believe no one understands the nature better than a farmer.

Nevetheless i do believe that farmers must be educated about the scientific secrets behind the nature although they protect the nature unknowingly.

I vote for minimum education to farmers

Not just chemicals much *traditional* farming is destructive for the environment. To say that *no one understand nature better than a farmer* is again a very over-generic proposition that we historically can prove is mostly untrue! Vast environmental problems are the result of allowing farmers to do as they please!

@Peter: Perhaps this will depend where traditional farming is practiced (e.g. Africa versus Europe?), e.g. involving elderly providing advice based on culturally transmitted information, also called local experience?

Marcel - I am not convinced - I have seen such *romantic* ideas being promoted before. However if we do look at many *traditional farming practices* we can easily find major disasters coming back time after time. Starvation, draught, devastating deforestation can all be seen as results of *traditional farming*. Most anywhere in the world. Not to mention how many *traditional farming* practices are not just environmentally *unsustainable* but also *dangerous* to the farmer and their families. Including in *traditional farming practices* is also the keeping of farm animals (enormous damage has can be found all over the world from *traditional keeping of farm animals, including cows, sheep and many more). Whole forest have given way to deserts in Africa *because* of traditional farming practices and so on...

>> Perhaps this will depend where traditional farming is practiced (e.g. Africa versus Europe?), e.g. involving elderly providing advice based on culturally transmitted information, also called local experience?

@Marcel - are they not educated - The producers of chemicals for agriculture? In EU they are at least regulated but perhaps that is not enough - perhaps they should be more regulated. But the idea of *driving licence* for farmers - is also about *regulating* what is and what is not acceptable farming behaviour. Including any use of chemicals. So in a way this would be indirectly also regulating the chemical industry. What is allowed to be used in farming practices would by definition be a regulation of those that produce chemicals for agriculture...

The farmer has to be an optimist or he wouldn't still be a farmer.

(Will Rogers)

About farmers being optimists:

1. Some farmers have no choice but to farm if they are to survive. Especially in poor countries - in some areas the only people who are farmers are those that are much too old to farm - but have no other option. All the young generation has left for the cities or industries which are no better - but offer a dream of getting away from the farm (commonly this is however turned into a nightmare for many who get into the city).

2. Some farmers are rich enough to have a choice -but some of them are cynically abusing their industrial position for short term benefits and greed (including semi-slave labour and questionable pesticides).

3. Some farmers have invested heavily in their farms so they have no choice but to pursue their business further.

4. Some farmers are optimists.

Dear Marcel - you should know by now (*smile*) that I am mainly pursuing a *qualitative* reflection over the world....   (no - I am not aware of specific statistics about this matter). Just personal experience of anecdotal evidence...

Farming traditionally is an occupation handed over through generations and the accumulated knowledge in the community is what gives  the farmer the education of how to go about doing their work. Traditional societies do have knowledge which is of great importance.

I speak of it not because of my educational background but my familyi.e my grand parents being farmers. I grew observing them and listening to them. when I recollect those memories it is quiet heartening to know that they could predict the rains because of their inherent knowledge of the weather cycles.

It is only after the intervention of modern knowledge the new seeds etc, that they have become bankrupt. Always looking for some one to give them seed. earlier they had their own seed, pwn manure which made sustainable for them. Which also made them more tolerant to unforeseen conditions.

Thanks for your valuable contributions!

My experience with farmers and ranchers in the Americas is that successful ones are exceptionally good practitioners of sustainable land use. In many cases, their practices are the result of many years of trial and error, perpetuated through oral histories. In some cases, this knowledge has been augmented by formal education. 

Does this imply that as a farmer managing farmland A that personal experience with farmland A is substantially more important to be efficient than mastering the published (theory-based) knowledge dealing with farmlands other than A?

This makes the difference between practice (based on experience) and theory (based on education)?

From an anthropological point of view, farmers include peasants, indians and yes, farmers. From this perspective they do have an ecological relationship to nature, and not just an economical and productivist one. Even though they may not be ecologically formally educated, they have an impact knowledge if nature that many scholars and academicians lack. Such an implicit knowledge teaches them that there are equal to nature and land, to the waters and weather.

Are farmers efficient landscape managers favouring biodiversity, e.g. related to pollinators originating from landscapes surrounding the farmland?

Monocultures: placing all the eggs in a single basket?

Multicultures: anticipating nature's dynamics?