Ecological farming knowledge is small with most information available coming for industrial monocultural models. The ecological system require more knowledge and labor and more diverse machinery. This can cause farmer trepidation for utilizing these techniques. In terms of peers there are more peer support for the large scale industrial models. The models which have a philosophical basis and are spiritual in origin may have limitation for widespread acceptance based on philosophical underpinning. Certified organic systems require a transition time which increases their cost and demand rigorous record keeping which are not has extensive for conventional farming. Marketing of ecological model farm products usually is something most farmers do not have expertise or experience. Farmers also may not see a direct payment for the ecological services they can provide.

A number of barriers were identified. Pest control was the main technical problem for organic farmers, particularly control of crop weeds and parasitic disease in young stock.

The period of transition from conventional to organic agriculture was a major barrier due to investment costs and low income. A lack of production and marketing information reduced the feasibility and increased the perceived risk of the technology.

Perceived technical difficulties, the uncertainty of organic food markets, a lack of production information, and current economic hardship were the main factors which deterred producers from adopting OF. Current economic conditions provide an incentive to reduce chemical use in fann production, but not to completely eliminate chemical inputs. The main areas where public policy could remove barriers to OF are the supply of information through subsidised research and extension, and the

establishment of a commercial industry infrastructure.

Our mind set up is the mail bottleneck of adopting new things. Besides, huge pressure on natural resources to produce more, especially in developing and under developed countries play a crucial role. Maintain ecosystem or feed the hungry mouth- most of the times we have to choose the second.

Dear Professor Borsari

Some good practices as the integrated production that is an intermediate model between the extensive and organic agriculture model in terms of food security and environmental protection have low adoption index.

Among several barriers, we can identify the lack of consumers who, in general, do not recognize this value and are not willing to pay for it.

Thank you all for your answers. However I am thinking also that the current centralization of the food system and the global economy model that goes hand in hand with it, create gigantic obstacles to a form of agriculture that is more ecologically sound.

Dear Dr. Borsani,

The question you are asking is large and I believe that to get to an answer that has applicable & actionable conclusions, one must work from large scale socioeconomic patterns down to bioregionally appropriate agroecological details.

I am pleased to see that you are looking across scales to answer your question of barriers to alternative farming practices. As your last comment rightly points out, there are systemic barriers to adopting alternative farming practices that are rooted in the centralization of power (financial and political) in a globalized, industrialized, neoliberal food system. Shifting subsidies towards farming practices that are ecologically regenerative (the metrics for this must be quantifiable and clearly defined if we are to award governmental subsidies) is a potential avenue for top down change in this respect. I would encourage you to also explore peer-peer, grassroots organizations that are looking to remove barriers to adopting alternative, ecologically regenerative farming practices as well. These are by definition smaller in scale (people, financial, and political power, scope, etc) and tend to be bioregionally focused. I believe that we need to see a diversity of tactics (subsidies, education, marketing, political lobbying, direct action, etc) operating across multiple scales (local, regional, national, global) in order to shift away from destructive agricultural practices and towards more holistice and regenerative ones (such as organic agriculture, regenerative agriculture, farms inspired by permaculture design, keyline design, or holistic management, etc).

Feel free to contact me for further discussion or if you are seeking references for work related to your question.

Best,

Ariel Leger

Thanks Ariel! Sure if you have any reference on this topic I would appreciate you sharing. I realize my question is big and every geographic and climatic context may possess its distinctive attributes to achieve a more ecologically sound form of agriculture. In other words, as you said:"Scale matters!" I am interested in helping small scale farmers (especially in developing countries) whose food security and sovereignty is constantly threatened by the ruthless expansion of the agroindustrial empire, which is supported by multinational corporation and corrupted governments. Keep up with the good work!

Dear Bruno,

Your question is very interesting. As part of a project we are conducting in the Ecuadorian Andes, my team and I are trying to understand the factors limiting collaboration between farmers and integrated pest management (IPM). This project is developed because in many localities of this area, the use of chemical pesticides is very important. Through surveys and interviews on the social dynamics of the farming communities that we study, we found that multiple factors favor the maintenance of polluting practices: the ignorance of the pests, the ignorance of the farming systems serving as barriers to pests and a lack of institutional support to contribute to the adoption of ecologically innovative practices. In Ecuador, the liberal policies of recent decades have largely contributed to the disappearance of state services in the countryside. Logically, the traders of chemicals took place in these same rural areas and are the only interlocutors of the peasants. So, every day, they recommend that they buy and use chemicals to control pests. In addition, in the urban markets, we found that intermediate buyers required farmers to use chemical pesticides to buy them well-calibrated products. Thus, we have also found that the quality (or characteristics) of rural-urban relations greatly influenced the adoption or not of innovative agricultural practices. In the end, we propose that from a methodological point of view, it is fundamental to know the characteristic of the rural-urban relations and the system of actors that exist in the rural localities. It is also important to know the trend of demographic dynamics (for example, if a peasant community is predominantly composed of elderly people, are the possibilities of locally developing ecologically innovative practices the same as in a locality where farmers are younger? What about a locality where there is a strong emigration of young people and where income can then buy chemicals?). Finally, the general context of agricultural policies and their influence at the local level should be taken into consideration (especially when it comes to favoring export crops that favor the decline of agro-biodiversity and the use of pesticides).

I would be happy to send you some figures if you are interested or to communicate the first results of these works that we will publish soon.

Regards,

Nasser.

Thank you Nasser. I find incredible how potent the market for agrichemicals can be even among small scale farmers in developing countries. I would be interested to learn more about the work you do in Ecuador on this and related topics. Gracias!

The problem is that ecological farming does not give higher yield immediately, while it practice needs generally more effort, more labour. Ecologial farming can not be adopted widely if ecologiacl products and conventional products are sold at the same price on the market. Then, we need a positive discrimation between them, in order that consumers can accept to pay for ecological products a price higher than that they will pay for conventional products. I developed this theory in this article online: http://www.slire.net/document/2336.

Thank you Houngbo. Interesting article the one you wrote. I understand your point very well but if ecological farming provides many more benefits and services to the farm I think that governments should provide incentives for facilitating the transition process within a certain time frame, to all farmers.

Mr Borsari. I see your comment. But, the process of change is not like you're describing. Poverty does not allow farmers adopting sustainable practices. Poverty is generally an obstacle to strategic reflexion, and then poor farmers are obliged to adopt non sustainable techniques for their immediate results, even if they induce negative effects. Secondly, the more the farm is large, the greater will be the effort (labour) to be used for ecological practices. That's why the farmers having a large farm cannot adopt these ecological practices. They need another incentives; a good price for example. The conventional techniques are not environmental safe, but they are adopted because they give immediate results and do not need great effort (labour) compared to the ecological ones. Chemical pesticides can destroy rapidly a large size of weeds while ecological techniques cannot do it immediately but through the time.

Thanks for a well formulated question and a civilized discussion. I turned to agroeco farming because that is a huge challenge. Partly because we know very little about the nature. Partly because our society, starting from the governing system, has been co-opted by the agribusiness and chemical mafia. You are talking about giving subsidies to small farmers, why not we remove multi billion dollar subsidies to that mafia? why not we expose their UN and NGO agents disguised as sustainable developers or hunger fighters? Almost all agro academic research is conducted to justify the same poisonous industry. Of course you are right, academics know little about traditional farming, because it does not fit into our 'modern' piece-meal analytical science. Farming science is a wholesome way of looking at life, from which the 'modern' world divorced sometime in the 20th century.

As for the market, in South America, we are kicking out the certifying NGO mafia with consumer participation in quality maintenance. That is the best way to win the confidence of the consumers, word of mouth, since we have no billions to advertise.

We need to rethink our science, our government, our lives and our future. I am from Sri Lanka/ Ecuador and proud to say that still there are people sticking to the traditional knowledge but they are a dying breed.

But first we have to rescue the rural farmer. The whole 'democratic' electoral machine is actively promoting urban migration to buy votes cheaper. Then we complain that there is no labor force in the field or too expensive and too much unemployment in the city! Folks, we need to see through the cobwebs in our minds, that is the toughest challenge.

I am immersed in a project to promote Crop Nurturing/ Crianza de la chacra concept practiced by traditional farmers all over. I invite you to browse through my website http://ky59.blogspot.com for some preliminary documents in English and Spanish. Have some recent drafts in 'water nurturing' project in Researchgate as well. Till we develop a strong enough voice to confront the mafia, we all can contribute to the fight: ask the elders, better if they are farmers, and learn from them, that is the best 'university'.

Dear Dr. Borsani,

I think you have raised a very pertinent query. I myself work in the area of agroecosystem ecology. I find that after the advent of the green revolution and the interest in quick profits this area has been largely neglected. However, as new research keeps adding to the knowledge base related to the ecological dimensions of agroecosystem management we first need to consolidate the information related to various aspects such as: soil management, type of cultivars, pest management, economics of the various modules etc. Next central initiatives must be taken for increasing farmer awareness with emphasis on long-term gains.

Dear Drs. Yapa and Rastogi,

Many thanks for your thoughtful comments about my question. It is refreshing to learn from your replies that "in the shadow of the mega agroindustry" the agroecology movement is surviving and thriving. I enjoyed learning more about the Crianza de la Chacra from your blog Dr. Yapa and appreciated the passion of your comments for the work you do. I hope that we may collaborate on a communal project for the benefit of small-scale, family farmers, somewhere, someday. Many thanks! Bruno

Perhaps, the transformation of food systems, for human equity and the health of the planet is happening already at the microscale, and in a variety of socio-economic systems. This is the scale of change most feasible for a paradigm shift in food systems, assuming that the agroindustry will not suppress its inevitable expansion?