See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286012964

The soil and field crop production

Chapter · December 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 9,666

3 authors:

Cristina Ganimede Vincenzo Tabaglio

Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
25 PUBLICATIONS 90 CITATIONS 89 PUBLICATIONS 1,320 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Giuseppe Bertoni
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
150 PUBLICATIONS 4,630 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Cristina Ganimede on 07 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 VITA E PENSIERO
Università

PP_Bertoni.indd 1 19/10/15 11:53

 GIUSEPPE BERTONI (ed.)

WORLD
FOOD PRODUCTION
FACING GROWING NEEDS
AND LIMITED RESOURCES

VITA E PENSIERO RICERCHE

PP_Bertoni.indd 3 19/10/15 11:53

 This volume is the result of the financing of Romeo and
Enrica Invernizzi Foundation to the Università Cattolica
del Sacro Cuore for the project: “Production of appropriate
food: sufficient, safe, sustainable”.

Translators:
Francesca Lucchi, Francesca O’Kane, Nilda Inghirami

www.vitaepensiero.it

Le fotocopie per uso personale del lettore possono essere effettuate nei limiti
del 15% di ciascun volume dietro pagamento alla SIAE del compenso previsto
dall’art. 68, commi 4 e 5, della legge 22 aprile 1941 n. 633.
Le fotocopie effettuate per finalità di carattere professionale, economico o
commerciale o comunque per uso diverso da quello personale possono essere
effettuate a seguito di specifica autorizzazione rilasciata da CLEARedi, Cen-
tro Licenze e Autorizzazioni per le Riproduzioni Editoriali, Corso di Porta
Romana 108, 20122 Milano, e-mail: autorizzazioni@clearedi.org e sito web
www.clearedi.org

© 2015 Vita e Pensiero - Largo A. Gemelli, 1 - 20123 Milano

ISBN 978-88-343-2958-0

PP_Bertoni.indd 4 19/10/15 11:53

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface by Giuseppe Bertoni IX

AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN FEEDING

LAURA ROSSI - MARINA CARCEA

Food, nutrition and malnutrition: a global vision 3

PAOLA DEL GIACOMO - ENRICO MARIA TRECARICHI -

PIER SANDRO COCCONCELLI - ROBERTO CAUDA
Safety of water and food: a key factor for development 27
ANDREA SONNINO
Meeting the growing global demand for food and nutrition:
current situation and outlook 55
MASSIMO IANNETTA - LAURA MARIA PADOVANI
The Agro-food industry, ‘from fork to farm’ 73

AGRICULTURE: GENERAL ASPECTS

ALFONSO PASCALE
The territory and the interaction between agricultural
and environmental, socio-economical and cultural changes 97
MARCO MARZANO DE MARINIS - LUISA VOLPE
Family farming and the sustainable use of natural resources
around the world 117
MARIA GEMMA GRILLOTTI DI GIACOMO
The role of women into modern agriculture 129
MARCO PELLIZZONI - MARCO TREVISAN
The impact of agriculture on natural resources
(water, soil and biota) 161

01_indice.indd V 09/11/15 10.38

 VI TABLE OF CONTENTS

CATELLO MASULLO
Water: availability and rational use (agricultural, industrial, civil) 191

NICOLA COLONNA - LUIGI ROSSI

Agriculture and energy: a tight nexus 203

MICHELE PISANTE
Multifunctional Agriculture 229

ROBERTO PINTON
Organic agriculture 253

GIUSEPPE BERTONI - ANDREA MINARDI

Agriculture and animals: different roles and ethical
considerations 275

AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY IN DEVELOPED

AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

LUIGI ROSSI
Innovation and sustainability of the agro-food system 307

MATTEO BUSCONI - MARIANGELA MARUDELLI - ADRIANO MAROCCO

Genomics and biotechnology for plant breeding 325

VINCENZO TABAGLIO - CRISTINA GANIMEDE - GIUSEPPE BERTONI

The soil and field crop production 347

OSVALDO FAILLA
Fruit tree production 375

MATTEO ANACLERIO - MARCO PELLIZZONI - MARCO TREVISAN

Protection of plants and agricultural products 393

G. MATTEO CROVETTO
Poultry and pig production systems in developing countries 437

MIRCO CORAZZIN - ANNA ZULIANI - STEFANO BOVOLENTA - EDI PIASENTIER

Ruminant production 457

01_indice.indd VI 09/11/15 10.38

 TABLE OF CONTENTS VII

SERGIO GATTI
Processing and preservation of plant and animal products 481

GIOVANNI GUASTELLA - PAOLO SCKOKAI

The role of agricultural cooperatives and producers’
organizations in improving food and nutrition security 501

Conclusions by Giuseppe Bertoni 523

Authors 541

01_indice.indd VII 12/11/15 12.58

VINCENZO TABAGLIO* - CRISTINA GANIMEDE* - GIUSEPPE BERTONI**

The soil and field crop production

The ethical role of the agronomist in producing food and protecting the
environment

The surface area worldwide used for agriculture is 4,920 million hec-
tares1 (Mha), equal to 37.8% of the world’s dry land. Herbaceous crop
production has a primary role in ensuring the availability of food for the
world’s population, as can be seen in Table 1 (FAOSTAT, 2012). In fact,
28.4% of the agricultural land is dedicated to arable crops, while only
3.3% is used for permanent crops; however, what prevails is the 68.3% of
land kept as permanent pastures. The arable area per capita in 2012 had
dropped to 0.22 ha with respect to the value of 0.4 ha circa recorded in
the 1970s. This large drop underlines the pressure that the continual de-
mographic increase exerts on the earth and it highlights the ethical role
of the agronomist that has to solve the problem of producing sufficient
food for each person, notwithstanding the fact that the per capita agri-
cultural surface area drops day by day.

Table 1 - Land uses in the World, 2012

Arable area Permanent crops Permanent pastures Cropland
Mha % Mha % Mha % ha per capita
1,397 28.4 163 3.3 3,360 68.3 0.22
Source: FAOSTAT, 2012.

Food production worldwide is represented by just a few dozen of crop

species, of which cereals are the most important in terms of produc-
tion volume (Table 2). In fact, maize, rice and wheat constitute the sta-
ple foods of the human diet in the various countries of the world, as

* Department of Sustainable Crop Production, Faculty of Agricultural, Food and Environ-

mental Sciences, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Piacenza.
** Institute of Zootechnics, Faculty of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences,

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Piacenza.

1
1 ha is equivalent to 10,000 m2.
348 VINCENZO TABAGLIO - CRISTINA GANIMEDE - GIUSEPPE BERTONI

well as being widely used as animal feed in developed countries. Besides

these three cereals, others cultivated as staple foods include teff, sor-
ghum, common millet, foxtail millet, quinoa etc., but their quantitative
importance is decisively inferior with respect to the first three. Moreo-
ver, as the populations in developing countries manage to increase their
standard of living, they tend to stop cultivating ‘poor’ cereals in favor of
the more ‘refined’ ones, for example preferring maize rather than sor-
ghum, or wheat rather than teff. This aligning of the diets in the world
leads to an acceleration in food demands for the future because as well
as feeding an increased number of people, there is the need to satis-
fy their demand for better quality foods. This same line of discussion
applies to foods of animal origin, whose presence in the diet is used
throughout the world as an indicator of the quality of the peoples’ diets.
With regard to yields, it should be underlined that reference is made
to world values obtained by averaging the excellent production yields
reached in developed countries (obtained using advanced agricultural
techniques) with the yields obtained in developing countries (where tra-
ditional techniques are still in use). In fact, yields of maize, for example,
can be twice that reported in table 2.
Even if the concept is not immediately perceived by public opinion,
the production context that has just been described relies entirely up-
on the soil, a non-renewable resource whose conservation is fundamen-
tal for the survival of humanity. For this reason the United Nations ded-
icated 2015 to the protection of the soil2 using the slogan ‘Healthy Soils
for a Healthy Life’. After air and water, finally also the soil is perceived
as a finite natural resource to be protected and conserved (Lal, 2008;
Dazzi, 2011). The soil is the basis foundation for plant growth, and it is
managed and cultivated by humans. Of course, agriculture is permitted
to use the land to yield the products needed to sustain humanity, but it
should do so respecting the need to safeguard the environment. Nowa-
days, the term Conservation Agriculture (CA) is often used (and almost
abused in order) to represent this concept, alternating it with the term
Sustainable Agriculture (SA)3. In particular, the adjective ‘sustainable’
is often associated with various groups of agricultural activities in order
to conceive expressions such as sustainable plant protection, sustainable
fertilization, sustainable irrigation etc.

2 The 68th General Assembly of the United Nations, by means of the resolution A/
RES/68/232, designated 5 December World Soil Day and declared 2015 to be Interna-
tional Year of the Soil to underline its importance for humanity’s survival.
3
Even though the term Conservation Agriculture and the abbreviation CA is more
common nowadays, we herein prefer to use the abbreviation SA (Sustainable Agriculture)
to avoid any misinterpretation of CA as Conventional Agriculture.
THE SOIL AND FIELD CROP PRODUCTION 349

Table 2 - Yields and production volumes of the world’s

main agricultural products (2012)
Production
Crop Yield (t ha-1)
volume (.000 t)
Cereals
rice, paddy 4.55 738,188
wheat 3.09 671,497
maize 4.89 872,792
barley 2.69 133,507
Tubers
cassava 12.93 269,126
potatoes 18.95 365,365
sweet potatoes 13.32 108,004
Pulse crops
beans, green 13.51 20,743
beans, dry 0.82 23,918
soybeans 2.30 241,142
Vegetables
vegetables, fresh 14.23 269,852
tomatoes 33.68 161,794
watermelons 30.34 105,372
Fruits
grapes 9.62 67,067
apples 15.77 76,379
bananas 20.59 101,993
Industrial Crops
sugar beet 55.00 269,825
sugar cane 70.60 1,842,266
fibre crops 0.70 265
cocoa, beans 0.50 5,003
coffee, green 0.88 8,827
tea 1.47 4,818
tobacco 1.75 7,491
gums, natural 39
Production
Food and animal origin products
volume (.000 t)
Milk
milk whole fresh cow 625,754
milk buffalo 97,417
Meat
cattle 62,737
pig 108,507
chicken 92,730
Source: FAOSTAT, 2012.
350 VINCENZO TABAGLIO - CRISTINA GANIMEDE - GIUSEPPE BERTONI

However, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, it should be noted

that agriculture is a systemic process that cannot readily be separated
into single sectors, not least for the purpose of this analysis. In fact, an
agricultural system or agroecosystem is constituted by a network of compo-
nents that are interdependent and interacting – in ecological terms this
network is defined as an “integrated bio-system” (Odum - Barrett, 2007).
When an agroecosystem is designed and implemented in a sustainable
manner, its impacts on the environment are compensated by the elevat-
ed productivity of crops and the high net production with respect to the
gross production, resulting in a favorable environmental performance,
and it is because of this holistic characteristic of agriculture (Jordan,
2013; Wezel et al., 2014; Lal, 2015a) that the entire agroecosystem can
be sustainable, not the single sectors.
The world agro-food situation has arrived at an obligatory turning
point. Global awareness of some critical issues such as climate changes,
pressure on natural resources, demographic increase, depopulation of
rural areas and access by some populations to diets rich in animal pro-
teins has revealed the need to profoundly revise agricultural production
systems (Worldwatch Institute, 2011) in both developed and developing
countries. The issues to be tackled vary greatly between such countries,
but there is one common denominator: attain a level of food produc-
tion of an appropriate nutritional quality that suffices to feed the world
population, respecting the agronomic, environmental, economical and
social sustainability of the production system. With this as an objective,
FAO (2004) proposed to sustainably intensify agricultural production
(Sustainable Crop Production Intensification4) and since then the issue has
been widely discussed in the scientific literature (with the most recent
contributions being: Pretty, 2008; Garnett et al., 2013; Campbell et al.,
2014; Sommer et al., 2014; Vanlauwe et al., 2014 and Lal, 2015b). The
term Sustainable Intensification only identifies a single concept that then
needs to be laid out in detail in function of the production scenario un-

4
The need to feed a growing population is a constant pressure on crop production, as is
coping with an increasingly degraded environment and uncertainties resulting from cli-
mate change – and the need to adapt farming systems to these. Sustainable crop produc-
tion intensification provides opportunities for optimizing crop production per unit area,
taking into consideration the range of sustainability aspects including potential and/or
real social, political, economic and environmental impacts. Recent trends would indicate
that the incorporation of scientific principles of ecosystem management into farming
practices can enhance crop production (yield). With a particular focus on environmental
sustainability through an ecosystem approach, sustainable crop production intensifica-
tion (SCPI) aims to maximize options for crop production intensification through the
management of biodiversity and ecosystem services. (http://www.fao.org/agriculture/
crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/spi/en/).
THE SOIL AND FIELD CROP PRODUCTION 351

der discussion, but it should be noted that this term is not synonymous
with Food Security (Garnett et al., 2013).
To look in detail at the task in hand it is first worth reminding our-
selves of some general, but rather unsettling, figures:
– current world population is 7.3 billion people, of which about 800
million suffer from hunger or malnutrition, while other 800 million suf-
fer from illnesses related to dietary excesses;
– in 2050 the world population will reach about 9.3 billion, with the
largest increase in Africa where a doubling of the current population is
foreseen;
– due to the increased population and aligning of the diets, the world
food production will have to increase by 70% and cereal and meat pro-
duction will have to increase by approximately 1 billion tons and 200 Mt,
respectively;
– 90% of the increased food production will need to come from in-
creased agronomic yields and crop intensification of the existing agri-
cultural land, while only 10% will come from newly cultivated land, ap-
proximately 120 Mha, of which almost all will be in developing countries
(FAO, 2009a).
At a first glance, it may seem very difficult to achieve these objectives in
the short time that is available, and their attainment could have serious
consequences for the environmental sustainability and for the earth’s
carrying capacity if they are not cleverly managed by humanity. An initial
working criteria is outlined in the volume Save and grow (FAO, 2011), in
which it is suggested that the use of new technologies be focused on (i)
increasing productivity, particularly where it is still low (in developing
countries), on (ii) reducing the environmental impact where it is high
(in developed countries) via a rational use of natural resources (soil, wa-
ter, air, biotic community) and technical inputs, and on (iii) a more effi-
cient use of energy. The main problems affecting the natural resources,
particularly in relation to agriculture, are the following: soil erosion, de-
pletion of organic matter and nutrients in the soil, impoverishment of
organic and nutritional substances in the soil, reduction and pollution
of water resources, emission of greenhouse gases and loss of biodiversity.
The challenge facing Agriculture in the near future is to profound-
ly revise the production processes in search of the best strategies to feed
the world population and liberate it from hunger, rendering agricultur-
al production more balanced from a social point of view and more sus-
tainable from an environmental and economical point of view. The de-
veloping countries must pursue these same objectives, integrating ‘soft’
technologies and actions capable of supplying local populations with
an income and food security. It is now beginning to be understood that
352 VINCENZO TABAGLIO - CRISTINA GANIMEDE - GIUSEPPE BERTONI

even in developing countries agriculture constitutes a useful tool for

dealing with food, health, social and environmental problems in a sce-
nario in which the planet’s resources are in a quantitative and/or quali-
tative decline and hunger and poverty are on the increase.

Soil fertility and fragility

Beyond its apparent rigidity and lack of mobility, the soil is functionally
an extremely delicate resource and it is essentially non-renewable in so
much that it takes decades – if not centuries – for it to regenerate. The
damage that can be caused by not paying attention to the land’s needs
can be temporary and thus in some way recoverable, or it can be perma-
nent, meaning that the timeframe of restoration is too extensive to be
taken into consideration. For this reason the availability of fertile soils
will be a prerequisite to dealing with the task of ensuring food supplies
for all humanity. At the same time conflicts for the available land must
be tackled. Conflicting uses of the land include the production of bioen-
ergy and biofuels, and urban expansion (Tabaglio, 2013).
It is now necessary to summarize what is threatening the land in an
ever more aggressive manner:
– wind and water erosion, though natural and unavoidable phenomena,
can be aggravated by incorrect agricultural practices and changes in land
use, such as deforestation or conversion of prairies into cropping land;
– reduction of organic matter in the soil due to the intensive tillage of the
soil, the disappearance of meadow from crops rotations, and the limited
or non-replacement of the organic matter via the use of crop residues or
animal effluents (particularly manure);
– compaction and reduction of soil porosity, which generates poor condi-
tions for the roots and the soil organisms;
– loss of agricultural soil for urbanisation and land-use change; in ad-
dition to the literal loss of soil as an agricultural resource, it causes soil
sealing and triggers dangerous phenomena of erosion, flooding and
pollution and it compromises some important functions of the ecosys-
tem. In the most affected regions of Italy, losses of 8-10 ha d-1 of good ag-
ricultural land have been recorded, and in Italy on a whole 100 ha are
lost daily (Battaglia et al., 2012);
– salinization, due to improper irrigation management, can provoke
a real and actual desertification in so much that the soil is rendered al-
most unsuitable for the development of the soil organisms and vegeta-
tion;
– a new risk is climate change, caused first and foremost by an increased
atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. The effects can vary at
THE SOIL AND FIELD CROP PRODUCTION 353

a local level, causing a reduction in soil organic matter in some areas

and thus an increase in the emission of carbon dioxide or other green-
house gases (IPCC, 2014).
The soil, far from being a simple inert substrate for the growth of plants,
hosts and interacts with more than a quarter of planet earth’s living be-
ings (Jeffery et al., 2010), that, however, are still largely unknown even
to science, particularly with regard to the microscopic life forms. It is on-
ly thanks to this large presence that the soil keeps itself in good health
and manages to carry out important ecosystemic functions (Doran - Parkin,
1994). Some noteworthy functions are:
– continual genesis of the soil itself, starting from parent material;
– promotion and upkeeping of the natural or agricultural productiv-
ity by triggering the nutrient and energy recycling chains in the agroe-
cosystem;
– climate regulation, by means of balancing the emission and stor-
age of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, methane and ni-
trous oxide;
– modulation of infiltration water flow together with removal of the
pollutants before the water reaches the aquifers;
– stabilization of the agroecosystem, since a rich and well-structured
edaphic biodiversity even ensures regular functioning under conditions
of environmental stress (Tabaglio, 2013).
There have been numerous attempts to objectively evaluate soil fertili-
ty by means of appropriate indices. Among them, the content of organ-
ic matter is the best single indicator of fertility because it encompasses
the properties related to the physical, chemical and biological charac-
teristics of the soil, as well as the flux potential of elements at the soil-
root interface.
In agricultural land the organic fraction generally represents 1.5-
10% of the solid phase by weight (Giardini, 2012) or 12-15% by volume;
this means that it constitutes a large part of the active surfaces in soil
and it highlights its fundamental role for both plant nutrition and main-
tenance of soil structure. The importance of the soil organic matter de-
rives from the numerous functions that it performs on:
– physical characteristics: it improves the soil structure via the forma-
tion of more stable aggregates, an increase in porosity and aeration, and
a reduction of erosion;
– hydrological characteristics: it increases the water retention capac-
ity and reduces evaporation, thereby rendering a larger quantity of wa-
ter available to the crops;
– plant nutrition – the decomposition of organic matter releases min-
eral elements that can be assimilated by the plants;
354 VINCENZO TABAGLIO - CRISTINA GANIMEDE - GIUSEPPE BERTONI

– edaphic community: it regulates the presence and functions of

some of the soil microorganism groups that are extremely important for
plant nutrition and soil health.
For these reasons, the living organic matter has a fundamental role
in guaranteeing the soil fertility. This includes plant roots, pedofau-
na (constituted by earthworms, nematodes, mites, springtails etc.) and
microflora (bacteria, actinobacteria, fungi and algae). The microbi-
al community performs the majority of the decomposition and detox-
ification processes that occur in the soil, and at the same time repre-
sents a notable reservoir of nutritional elements for cultivated plants.
On the other hand, earthworms are very important for the improve-
ment and maintenance of the soil structure and for the stability of the
aggregates, creating galleries, mixing the organic matter with the inor-
ganic substrates, producing mucilage and leaving behind organic res-
idues that are very rich in nitrogen (Kladivko, 2001; Tabaglio et al.,
2009; Blouin et al., 2013).
Mechanical disturbance of the soil, and particularly its compaction
and a reduction in its porosity, worsens the habitat and causes a reduc-
tion in the pedofauna, especially the earthworms (Chan, 2001; Bertrand
et al., 2015). On the contrary, managing the soil via conservation prac-
tices has a positive effect on the microfauna and mesofauna (Tabaglio
et al., 2008a; Tabaglio et al., 2009; Eriksen-Hamel et al., 2009; Peigné et
al., 2009), and it is for this reason that in natural soils or largely undis-
turbed soils the level of organic matter tends to be higher than in cul-
tivated soils from which there is a greater removal of organic matter. In
addition, destruction of organic matter in cultivated soil is more intense
due to the greater oxygenation of the soils, as caused by their frequent
and deep tillage (de Paul Obade - Lal, 2014).
In order to give a name to the rethinking in new agricultural devel-
opment models, the term Brown Revolution has been conceived, coined
from the term Green Revolution, the program to increase world agricul-
tural production, initiated by Norman Bourlaug at the beginning of the
1940s and based on the introduction of high-input technologies: high-
yielding varieties, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, intense
mechanization, irrigation, etc. Despite the obvious advantages for agri-
cultural production and daily life, this intensive approach caused both
environmental and social damage in some situations; thereafter the in-
itial implementation strategy was revised in favor of a more gradual im-
plementation using ‘softer’ inputs. What differs with the Brown Revolu-
tion is that it emphasizes the role of organic matter (that is brown in
color, hence the name), in conserving and promoting agricultural soil
fertility and thus agricultural and animal productivity. The newly coined
THE SOIL AND FIELD CROP PRODUCTION 355

term is accredited to Howard G. Buffer, president of the Foundation of

the same name that promotes agricultural development projects in Afri-
ca together with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Agricultural production in developed countries

Among the management systems to be considered as being alterna-

tives to those of conventional agriculture, Conservation Agriculture (al-
so known as Sustainable Agriculture, SA) represents one of the most ad-
vanced models, and is in fast and continuous evolution. It is defined as
“an approach to managing agroecosystems for improved and sustained
productivity, increased profits and food security while preserving and
enhancing the resource base and the environment” (FAO, 2004; 2012).
This definition has been shown to be too vague and it is felt as if there
is the need to have a standardized definition to describe the practices of
sustainable agriculture (Derpsch et al., 2014). SA represents a multi-fac-
eted response to the need of safeguarding the ecosphere within a con-
text of intensified sustainable production (Pisante et al., 2012; Pisante,
see his contribution in this volume). In fact, SA enables a widespread
and continued improvement of the soil agronomic properties, to the
point of protecting the productivity and the profitability of the crop-
ping systems. Moreover, SA significantly reduces the extent of degrada-
tion of the soil’s physical, chemical and biological fertility, it reintegrates
the losses caused by the mineralization of organic carbon, it restricts the
greenhouse gas emissions within the agricultural sector (with a mitigat-
ing effect on global warming) and it promotes a better use of water with
respect to the crops. Further advantages of SA include a greater flexibil-
ity of cropping operations, a better work and hand labor efficiency and
a reduced use of machinery, which has positive consequences on soil po-
rosity and generates a saving on fossil fuel consumption.
Overall, it seems clear that this “silent revolution” (Huggins - Reg-
anold, 2008) in soil management targets the conservation of soil or-
ganic matter as a promoter of soil fertility and agricultural produc-
tivity, while at the same time it aims to increase the soil carbon stock
and thus participate in the mitigation of global warming (Lal, 2014).
It is in this light that SA is proposed as a sort of ‘greening’ volunteer,
showing off its potential to generate ‘carbon credits’ in favor of Earth’s
health (ECAF, 2012; Brenna et al., 2014; Pisante et al., 2014; World
Bank Group, 2014).
SA is based on four fundamental pillars: (i.) crop rotation, (ii.) mini-
mal alternation of the soil profile by reducing soil tillage, right through
to no-tillage, (iii.) permanent surface coverage using crop residues and (iv.)
356 VINCENZO TABAGLIO - CRISTINA GANIMEDE - GIUSEPPE BERTONI

use of cover crops. The integration of these fundamental agronomic prin-

ciples provides optimal conditions for root development and function-
ing, increasing the soil organic matter and the soil aggregate stability,
which in turn determine an increased agronomic fertility of the culti-
vated land.
Crop rotation, or at least its softer alternative of succession planting, is
a starting point in this resurgence of sustainability within the agroeco-
system. It deals with planning an ordered sequence of crops of different
species in order to avoid the progressive reduction of yields that occur
when the same crop is frequently replanted on the same land. In the last
ten years, the intensive agriculture of developed countries abandoned
crop rotations because of the will to simplify operations, and because of
the drive to have more immediate returns on investment; add to this a
lack of looking to the future.
No-till excludes all mechanical tilling of the soil, and thereby excludes
ploughing and harrowing to prepare the seedbed, as well as crop opera-
tions such as hoeing, rotovating and hiling. Seeding is done directly on
the residues of the previous crop. A good no-till seeder or planter must
be able to cut the residues without digging them in, and it must have the
force to slice the sod soil, lay the seed at a uniform depth in direct con-
tact with the soil, and then close the furrow and cover the seed. Given
these requisites, it is understandable that choosing the most appropriate
sod seeder for the specific pedo-climatic characteristics of the farm is a
critical factor in no-tillage systems, together with a timely sowing when
the soil conditions are ideal.
The third pillar of SA is having permanent crop residues on the soil sur-
face. As well as forming a mulch that protects the soil against erosion,
they reduce surface water evaporation and aid weed control (Dormaar
- Carefoot, 1996). The laying down of an abundant amount of organic
matter on the soil surface unveils the paradox of no-till that strives to in-
crease the porosity and softness of the soil by not working it.
Finally, SA utilizes cover crops in order to never leave the soil uncov-
ered, even between one main crop and the next. Cover crops differ bo-
tanically and seasonally, and according to their cultivation methods, but
can be used singly or as a mix. Though each one has a different function,
cover crops have the common factor of being crops that generate no di-
rect income, but instead provide an agroecosystem service, or in other
words they indirectly benefit the sustainability of the agricultural system.
The main functions of cover crops are listed here below (Chauhan et al.,
2012; Wortman et al., 2012; Thomas and Archambeaud, 2013):
– protect the soil against erosion;
– increase the pedological organic matter;
– enrich the soil nutrients (nitrogen fixing);
THE SOIL AND FIELD CROP PRODUCTION 357

– capture and recycle soil nutrients;

– control weeds;
– protect against soil compaction and care for the soil structure;
– absorb any excess of soil humidity;
– pests control.
The choice of a single cover crop or a mix of species should be done on
the basis of the desired functions, or in accordance with the farm con-
ditions. Overall, the main criteria that influence choice are (Tabaglio,
2013; Ramírez-García et al., 2015):
– pedo-climatic characteristics of the farm;
– biological cycle of the cover crop;
– suitability of the single species or mixture within the crop rotation;
– quantity of biomass and nutrients (particularly N) produced by the
cover crop;
– type of root system (superficial, deep, branched, topsoil loosener);
– effect on the soil water retention;
– timing and method for terminating the cover crop;
– ease of managing the residue that remains on the land.
It can be said that the four pillars of SA, as they have been briefly pre-
sented, represent an efficient solution for achieving the objectives of a
sustainable intensification of crop production in developed countries,
while respecting the need to safeguard the environment. Now, without
going into the details of each crop and each agricultural practice, it is
sufficient to provide some examples of the technological innovations
that are, to a certain extent, already in use in developed countries, or
that are foreseen to become favorable options in the ever more concert-
ed drive towards sustainable agricultural production.
For the main crops such as small cereals (wheat, barley, triticale),
maize, sorghum, rapeseed, sunflower, soybean, alfalfa etc., no-tillage
and other techniques of conservation agriculture have been shown to
have a good diffusion potential, notwithstanding some resistance due
to the difficulty in controlling weeds, the farmers’ inexperience and the
absence of suitable no-till seeders (Koskinen - McWhorter, 1986; Bak-
er - Saxton, 2007; Hobbs, 2007; Tabaglio - Trettenero, 2012; Kassam et
al., 2014). It is not by chance that SA is practiced worldwide on only
157 Mha (FAO, 2015a), and in its most integral form using no-tillage
on approximately 125 Mha (Landers et al., 2013; Gonzalez-Sanchez et
al., 2015), equal to about 10% of the total agricultural land. Obviously,
the efficiency of conservation systems will depend on climate, soil type,
the crop and the technical capacity of the farmer (Knowler - Bradshaw,
2007). In some cases, the transition from a conventional to a conserva-
tive system requires relatively long periods, needing up to 5-10 years to
358 VINCENZO TABAGLIO - CRISTINA GANIMEDE - GIUSEPPE BERTONI

establish an equilibrium between soil-plant-environment that maximizes

and stabilizes the yields with respect to conventional agriculture (Dick et
al., 1991; Derpsch, 2008).
Another important issue of agricultural sustainability regards the
competition for water, between agriculture, civil uses, industrial produc-
tion and environmental needs; this competition will be ever more acute
as it faces an increased world population and climate change. The most
efficient solution in conservation agriculture for achieving further wa-
ter savings is to improve the productivity of the water, producing more
food per unit of water used. One particular proposal is to use Subsur-
face Drip Irrigation (SDI), a technique that is still little known (Ayars et
al., 2015). It is an irrigation system that installs perforated plastic tub-
ing (drip tape) below the soil (at a depth of 35-40 cm, max. 50 cm) for
a long period (15-20 years). The tape has micro-perforations (drippers)
that dampen the soil layer that is in contact with the roots, directly or via
capillary up-flow of the water5.
When well managed, the SDI system reduces losses due to evapora-
tion, surface run-off and leaching, bringing the water-use efficiency up
to 95%. Moreover, the SDI system reduces the risk of fungal diseases and
weed invasion. A further advantage of SDI is the possibility of adminis-
tering the fertilizers together with the irrigation water, making it more
efficient in economic terms, as well as with respect to plant nutrition.
When the SDI system is coupled with no-tillage and/or mulching with
a plastic film, the agronomic and environmental advantages are maxi-
mized.
A third problematic aspect of conventional agriculture is chemical
weeding, something that is becoming an ever more difficult and expen-
sive practice. To reduce the worries with regard to its possible negative
effects on the environment, SA has adopted an integrated approach that
includes crop rotations, cover crops and one of the more interesting
alternative techniques of weed control – allelopathy. Allelopathy is de-
fined as “any direct or indirect, harmful or beneficial, effect by one plant
(including microorganisms) on another through production of chemi-
cal compounds that escape into the environment” (Rice, 1984). SA ex-
ploits this phenomenon as a useful tool for an integral management of
weeds in the agroecosystem by searching for allelopathic cover crops,
or rather species that release – when dead or alive – molecules that sup-
press the weed seedlings in the pre-emergence phase (Weston, 1996;
Tabaglio et al., 2013; Jabran et al., 2015). The use of cover crops for this
purpose is still being studied, particularly in order to verify the best ag-

5
Subsurface drip irrigation is a low-pressure (0.9-1.1 bar), high efficiency irrigation sys-
tem that uses buried drip tubes or drip tape to meet crop water needs.
THE SOIL AND FIELD CROP PRODUCTION 359

ronomic technique for exploiting their natural herbicide potential. Rye

is among the most promising species, and is one of the most studied spe-
cies to date, though its effects vary according to variety as certain varie-
ties produce higher levels of allelopathic substances than others (Taba-
glio et al., 2008b; 2012). Other allelopathic cover crops of particular in-
terest include hairy vetch, radish and buckwheat (Curran et al., 2006).
The on-field efficiency of the active substances contained within the al-
lelopathic cover crop generally lasts 20-30 days and depends on many
factors; cover species, variety, development stage of the cover crop when
the mulch is formed, quantity of biomass produced, soil fertility and sea-
sonal conditions (Smeda - Weller, 1996; Ercoli et al. 2005; Gavazzi et al.,
2010). An additional line of study that regards alternative weed control
is that of studying active molecules produced by plants or microorgan-
isms with the prospect of synthesizing them chemically in order to ob-
tain new herbicides that mimic the natural mechanisms (Dayan et al.,
2012; Varejão et al., 2013).
A last aspect that is driving sustainability forward in developed
countries is precision agriculture, and specifically the electronic moni-
toring and control, and information and decision support to optimize
the temporal and spatial application of inputs in agricultural produc-
tion (Lowenberg-DeBoer - Swinton, 1997). In brief, the concept is that
of carrying out agricultural practices and providing inputs not in an
uniform manner, but when and where it is needed within a given plot.
Such precision guarantees a saving on inputs, generates a better use-
efficiency and has notable environmental advantages. Equipped with
site-specific knowledge obtained from remote sensing tools, drones,
GPS, satellite images, specific sensors and others it is possible to sow
more precisely and apply fertilizers, agrochemicals and water in a more
precise manner, thereby achieving food production in a sustainable
way (Gebbers - Adamchuk, 2010). Since its initial application in ara-
ble farming, precision agriculture in zootechnics is now also under study,
in particular in relation to animal housing, feeding and health (Bon-
giovanni - Lowenberg-DeBoer, 2004). This study area is very promising
due to the number of approaches and tools being applied to it, many
of which are new emerging and highly innovative techniques (Liaghat
- Balasundram, 2010), but there is the risk that it may derail from the
tracks of sustainability if the only aim is to achieve a last possible mar-
ginal increase in productivity. In this case, precision agriculture would be-
come a sort of unnecessary technological expedience or futile ‘medi-
cal’ care. In order to be truly sustainable, precision agriculture should be
part of a holistic view of the agroecosystem and it should provide sav-
ings on production factors, reduce the environmental impact of the
production system, improve the animal welfare, enable the production
360 VINCENZO TABAGLIO - CRISTINA GANIMEDE - GIUSEPPE BERTONI

of an appropriate food system and promote rural economics (Liaghat

- Balasundram, 2010; Gadanakis et al., 2015).

Agricultural production in developing countries

In developing countries, agriculture is revealing itself as being an inte-

gral and economic tool to combat the effects of climate change, to fight
hunger and malnutrition, to improve health and hygiene conditions
and reduce illnesses related to diet, by creating jobs and enabling an in-
clusive development of rural populations. Contrary to what may be be-
lieved, also developing countries are experiencing a progressive deple-
tion of the natural resources on which agriculture is based (soil, water,
biodiversity), and this triggers or aggravates the competition for their
multiple uses (IFAD, 2010).
As already said with regard to developed countries, crop production
in developing countries also requires innovative strategies to make it in-
tensive and sustainable – strategies, however, that much be based on
techniques and tools that are decisively different from those that can be
utilized in a developed economy. Despite this difference, there are some
common aspects that should be emphasized, and regarding improving
fertility and soil water retention capacity by increasing the organic mat-
ter and promoting a frugal and efficient management of water (see the
above mentioned Brown Revolution).
In developing countries, given the poor means available, a lack of in-
frastructure, sporadic government interventions and peculiar social and
cultural structures, farmers need some help to find targeted technical
solutions to their problems based on local knowledge and experience,
as well as on scientific research. It is therefore clear that basic education
and agricultural training has a fundamental role in providing a mod-
est, yet widespread knowledge of agricultural techniques, which is much
needed because agricultural activities will continue to involve a large
part of the rural workforce for much time, and knowledge of agricul-
tural techniques can contribute to alleviating the food problems of fam-
ilies. Agricultural education from the primary school onwards together
with practical experience will also help to instill the concept of necessity
with regard to the family farm, purveying it as something worthy, avoid-
ing the risk that it becomes seem as an inferior activity and shunned by
young people as soon as they have reach a minimum level of training.
In addition, rural education will have to promote social-cultural aspects
such as collaboration between small family farms (within a village) in or-
der to create a small cooperative where group spirit can emerge, and
members jointly tackle problems and promote innovation.
THE SOIL AND FIELD CROP PRODUCTION 361

On another level there is also the need to create synergies between

national and local institutions, civil societies, the private sector and the
farmers and their organizations (FAO, 2011).
In order to understand the current limits of agricultural development
in developing countries and the operative means needed to achieve it, it
is worth summarizing a few essential traits of the social structure and the
agricultural production systems, even though it may risk to be too gen-
eral. On the whole, agriculture in developing countries is subsistence
agriculture done by the women. It is highly dependent on natural wa-
ter availability and rainfall, and scarcely uses fertilizers, agrochemicals or
machinery (FAO, 2015b; Lal et al., 2015).
The rural population is still greater than that in urban areas: world-
wide approximately 3.1 billion people live in rural areas. However, it is
estimated that between 2020 and 2025 the world rural population will
reach its peak and then start to decline, and the urban populations of
developing countries will be more numerous. In Latin America and the
Caribbean, and in eastern and south-eastern Asia the number of inhab-
itants in rural areas is already in decline.
On another note, with regard to the soil as an agricultural resource,
developing countries are experiencing serious losses in organic matter
in cultivated land. For example, in a study carried out in Senegal, the
available organic matter has decreased from 2.8% to 0.8% in the first
10 cm of soil and from 1.5 to 0.75% in the next 10 cm due to a contin-
ued cultivation for approximately 90 years (Lal, 2015c). The main caus-
es of this decrease are erosion, a rapid mineralization due to high tem-
peratures, simplification of crop rotations and intercropping, removal
of crop residues, and scarce use of fertilizers and irrigation. It is obvious-
ly a problem of balance – the organic matter consumed annually is not
replaced and thus the agricultural system becomes unsustainable. It is
worth noting that the removal of crop residues is becoming a bad habit,
even though it is also a necessity: in a situation of scarcity of production
means and inputs, competition for resources is inflamed. In fact, crop
residues, as organic matter, have multiple uses including their use as an-
imal feed or as a building material (for houses), or even as a fuel to burn
for cooking or heating, and for these reasons the crop residues are not
left on the land and nor are they ploughed in as a fertilizer.
In order to double food production in developing countries by 2050,
land use will have to be intensified and productivity will have to be in-
creased (see, above, Sustainable Intensification), but without entirely fol-
lowing the example of the Green Revolution that caused an excessive ex-
ploitation of the cultivated lands and needed an elevated use of exter-
nal inputs (that are anyway unavailable in many developing countries).
On a global scale, food production in the last 40 years increased in a
362 VINCENZO TABAGLIO - CRISTINA GANIMEDE - GIUSEPPE BERTONI

more proportional manner with respect to the world population; the in-
creased agricultural production notably increased world food supplies,
causing a reduction in the cost of food until just recently (Worldwatch
Institute, 2011). Thanks to technological progress, yields per hectare
doubled from 1963 to 1983; in the early ’80s rice, wheat and maize yields
grew by 2.1%, 3.6% and 2.9% per year, respectively, but the abundance
only reached part of the world’s population (De Castro, 2015). Then, at
the beginning of the millennium it can be said that something changed,
and from an era of abundance we passed to an era of scarcity and food
insecurity (De Castro, 2011). According to OECD-FAO (2013) estimates,
average annual growth in world agricultural production in the near fu-
ture will be around 1.5%, compared to the 2.1% recorded in the period
2000-2010. One of the factors that explain this slowing down is the drop
in public investments made available for agricultural research, which is
what distinguished the developed countries from the 1990s onwards. On
the contrary, an increase in investment in agriculture has been made in
countries with emerging economies (China, India, Brazil), though the
investment has caused serious risks for both the environmental and so-
cial sustainability of these countries (pollution and degradation on non-
renewable resources, and land-grabbing).
Therefore, the objective of doubling food production in developing
countries can spark a certain worry for the effect it may have on the en-
vironment – an understandable worry should the doubling be achieved
using intensive high-impact agricultural techniques based exclusively on
the supply of high levels of inputs of a high technological level. In a con-
text characterized by ever declining natural resources, by a lack of en-
ergy supply, by structural and infrastructural limitations and by climatic
change, it is clearly necessary to adopt a systematic approach based on
‘soft’ technologies.
With regard to field crop production, priority should be given to con-
serving and restoring the natural resources and reinforcing the capaci-
ty of the agroecosystem to adapt to variations and changes in the climate.
On the African continent in particular, production losses in the order to
10-20% are being recorded (FAO, 2009b); they are due to the ‘soil ex-
haustion’, caused by the overexploitation of the agroecosystem. Specific
causes of this overexploitation include the growing demographic density,
the poor availability of organic and chemical fertilizers, and the impossi-
bility of leaving land fallow. In addition, climate changes are altering the
annual rainfall patterns, which in turn influences soil fertility due to a re-
duction in the crop growth potential and thus a reduction in the possibili-
ty of producing and replacing organic matter within the soil cycle.
The basis for sustainability within the wished-for increase in agricul-
tural production in developing countries must be the criteria for SA il-
THE SOIL AND FIELD CROP PRODUCTION 363

lustrated earlier in this chapter. With intensity and method calibrated

against the local situation, the new agroecosystem in developing coun-
tries must be based on the regeneration and maintenance of soil fertil-
ity, as well as on maximizing organic matter recycling, inserting legumi-
nous species into the crop rotations, optimizing the intercroppings, de-
vising suitable agro-forestry systems, and using cover crops, mulch and
efficient irrigation systems. A sustainable intensification of the produc-
tion must generate a parallel reduction in the rate of deforestation and
incentivize reforestation and conservation of the natural ecosystems.
Another essential aspect regards water, particularly in view of the cli-
mate changes that render the natural availability of water ever more er-
ratic and unpredictable. Problems are being had in countries that suffer
from an excess, as well as those that have too little; it is therefore of pri-
mary importance to study the best systems to conserve and distribute wa-
ter for irrigation purposes. In sub-Saharan Africa more than 95% of the
cultivated land depends on rainfall alone, in Latin America 90%, with
a little less in North Africa and Asia, where 75% and 65% of the culti-
vated land, respectively, relies on rainfall (Wani et al., 2009). The areas
most subject to food insecurity are exactly those in which agriculture so
strongly depends on the climate without any form of technological back-
up. Moreover, these areas are characterized by poor infrastructures due
to the high level of social-economic poverty.
In developing countries the strategies that are unfolding for improv-
ing productivity in agriculture are the following:
– use of improved varieties with specific genetic breeding programs
to improve productivity and resistance, and shorten the crop cycle so
as to reduce the probability that unfavorable climatic events can have a
negative impact on the production;
– increase in crop diversity to have more flexibility for agricultural
production;
– small-scale irrigation systems to satisfy the needs of the family farm;
– use of intercropping and catch crops to fully exploit the labor, the
surface area available and the entire growing season;
– recycling crop residues into the soil to favor the increase of organ-
ic matter, so long as the residues are not needed as animal feed or for
composting;
– use of minimum tillage or no-tillage techniques, where possible.
Here below are some examples of the results obtained by applying the
aforementioned techniques.
From the 1960s until 2005 the yield per hectare of rainfed maize
tripled, even though the specific yields achieved around the world
vary. In Latin America yields reached 3 t ha-1, in Southern Asia 2 t ha-1
364 VINCENZO TABAGLIO - CRISTINA GANIMEDE - GIUSEPPE BERTONI

and in Africa 1 t ha-1. There is however still a certain potential to in-

crease these production levels; in fact, there are some examples where
traditional practices have been improved to the point of increasing the
availability of staple foods (Wani et al., 2009).
In Tanzania, for example, using improved agricultural practices
based on the use of appropriate fertilizers, adequate herbicides and pes-
ticides and improved crop varieties (improved with respect to the local
pedoclimatic conditions), a decisive increase in maize (+80%) and rice
(+20%) production was achieved. Maize production reached 10 t ha-1
compared to the previous 5.6 t ha-1, while rice production went from 7.1
t ha-1 to 8.6 t ha-1. These results were also likely due to the training given
to the farmers, particular regarding the crop cycles and the cultivation
techniques (Mtengeti et al., 2015).
In India, the production potential of rice is calculated as being 6
t ha-1, but the average yield reaches a maximum of 2 t ha-1 (Aggarwal,
2009). In the Indian state of Meghalaya, rice yields reach 4.0-4.5 t ha-1
when farmers use the improved varieties produced in local research
centers (Bertoni, 2015). In addition, some villages in Meghalaya are ex-
perimenting an alternative crop technique that is a simplified version of
the method called System of Rice Intensification, SRI. The effectiveness of
this method is still much debated in the scientific community as it often
lacks an adequate level of standardization, however, among the advan-
tages it claims to offer are that it enables a 50-80% saving on seeds and
enables yields to be increased by 40-50%. The starting point is the use of
seeds of an improved cultivar; the seedlings produced in a seedbed are
then transplanted to the open field very early, at the 2-leaf stage. Manu-
ally transplanting the seedlings following a spatial geometric design (in-
terplant and inter-row distances of 25 cm) favors weed control (IFAD,
2010; Buck - Scherr, 2011; Glover, 2011).
In Uganda and Kenya, different levels of sustainable intensification
of cassava production have been trialed; by starting with traditional prac-
tices and slowly implementing improvements in the cultivation tech-
niques (stand density 1 m x 1 m, improved variety, fertilizers), yields
progressively increased from an initial 8.6 t ha-1 to 10 t ha-1, then 13 t ha-1
and finally 20 t ha-1. This improvement was achieved by intervening in
the physical, social and economic capital available to the farmers (Fer-
mont et al., 2009).

Final remarks

Agriculture, being the primary sector of human activities, has the tech-
nical role of providing food for a continuously growing world popula-
THE SOIL AND FIELD CROP PRODUCTION 365

tion. The pursuit of this onerous mission bestows agriculture with specif-
ic ethical duties, as on one hand it must guarantee humanity’s survival,
on the other hand it must safeguard the environment for future gener-
ations. In other words, rendering food available for humanity does not
have a single quantitative dimension, but three: agricultural production
must ensure the provision of sufficient, safe and sustainable food (Ber-
toni, 2015).
The production of field crops, including forage crops, has a primary
role in succeeding in the abovementioned mission, both in developed
and developing countries. In recent decades, the emergence of severe-
ly critical agronomic, environmental, economic and social situations
has brought to light an ever-stronger realization that all the agrosystems
must undergo a profound structural revision. Among the management
systems that are alternatives to conventional agriculture, Sustainable Ag-
riculture represents the most advanced system, being able to be defined
as a system that protects water and agricultural soil by integrating ag-
ronomic, environmental and economic aspects. SA conserves and im-
proves agricultural yields while also significantly reducing the extent of
physical, chemical and biological degradation of the land, as well as alle-
viating erosion, reintegrating the losses caused by mineralization of or-
ganic carbon, limiting the emission of greenhouse gases from the agri-
cultural sector (with consequential mitigating effects on global warm-
ing) and promoting a better use of water.
In developed countries, SA studies and applies modern techniques
for soil management, irrigation, and weed and pest control, with the
specific target of preserving high production levels and conserving the
environment. In developing countries, on the other hand, traditional
agriculture (often characterized as being subsistence agriculture) is re-
vised, and innovative techniques are inserted. These innovative tech-
niques have to be compatible with the environmental sustainability, but
also, and above all, with the acceptance by the rural people and the so-
cial-economic system.
In both developed and developing countries the starting point of any
revision in the agricultural practices must be the care of the soil, that be-
yond its apparent solidity and immobility is an extremely fragile agricul-
tural resource, and it is essentially non-renewable. The pedological or-
ganic matter has a fundamental role in ensuring the agronomic fertility
of the soil, and thus its aptitude to produce.
For this reason, in the revision – or revolution – of the agroecosystems,
here proposed, the role of the organic matter (which is brown coloured,
hence the term ‘Brown Revolution’) in conserving and promoting the fer-
tility of the agricultural soils is greatly emphasized as a fertile soil in turn
promotes a prosperous agricultural and zootechnical production. The
366 VINCENZO TABAGLIO - CRISTINA GANIMEDE - GIUSEPPE BERTONI

availability of fertile soils will therefore be fundamental if agriculture is to

succeed in providing food for a growing world population while also tack-
ling land-use conflicts, for urban use or for the production of bioenergy
and biofuels. It seems that it is time for agriculture to be seen once again
as a strategic primary sector and for environmental protection to stop be-
ing seen as a pointless and hateful obstruction to progress; it should in-
stead be seen as a framework within which to revise the agrosystems so as
to drive agriculture towards sustainable intensification.

REFERENCES

Aggarwal P.K. (2009), Determinants of Crop Growth and Yield in Changing Climate,
in Wani S.P. - Rockström J. - Oweis T. (eds.), Rainfed Agriculture: Unlocking the
Potential, CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Ayars J.E. - Fulton A. - Taylor B. (2015), Subsurface drip irrigation in California
– Here to stay?, “Agricultural Water Management”, 157, p. 39-47.
Baker C.J. - Saxton K.E. (2007), The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of No-tillage Farming, in
Baker C.J. - Saxton K.E. (eds.), No-tillage Seeding in Conservation Agriculture (2nd
ed.), FAO - CAB International, Rome, p. 1-10.
Battaglia M. - Rondinone A. - Cruciani S. - Munafò M. - Pesce A. (2012),
Costruire il futuro: difendere l’agricoltura dalla cementificazione. Perdita di terreni ag-
ricoli, approvvigionamento alimentare e impermeabilizzazione del suolo, Mipaf, Roma.
Bertoni G. (ed.) (2015), Produzione e uso del cibo. Sufficienza, sicurezza e sostenibili-
tà, Egea, Milano (being printed).
Bertrand M. - Barot S. - Blouin M. - Whalen J. - de Oliveira T. - Roger-Es-
trade J. (2015), Earthworm services for cropping systems. A review, “Agronomy for
Sustainable Development”, 35, p. 553-556.
Blouin M. - Hodson M.E. - Delgado E.A. - Baker G. - Brussaard L. - Butt
K.R. - Dai J. - Dendooven L. - Peres G. - Tondoh J.E. - Cluzeau D. - Brun J.-J.
(2013), A review of earthworm impact on soil function and ecosystem services, “Europe-
an Journal of Soil Science”, 64, p. 161-182.
Bongiovanni R. - Lowenberg-DeBoer J. (2004), Precision Agriculture and Sus-
tainability, “Precision Agriculture”, 5, p. 359-387.
Brenna S. - Acutis M. - Tabaglio V. - Grandi M. (2014), Conservation Agricul-
ture as a Driver for Carbon Credit Market, in Basch G. - González-Sánchez E.J. -
Kassam A. - Triviño-Tarradas P. - Holgado-Cabrera A. (eds.) (2014), Green
Carbon: Making sustainable agriculture real, European Conservation Agriculture
Federation (ECAF), Brussels, p. 22.
Buck L.E. - Scherr S.J. (2011), Far diventare l’ecoagricoltura una pratica conven-
zionale, in Worldwatch Institute, State of the World. Nutrire il Pianeta, Edizio-
ni Ambiente, Milano.
THE SOIL AND FIELD CROP PRODUCTION 367

Campbell B.M. - Thornton Ph. - Zougmore R. - van Asten P. - Lipper L.

(2014), Sustainable intensification: What is its role in climate smart agriculture?, “Cur-
rent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability”, 8, p. 39-43.
Chan K.Y. (2001), An overview of some tillage impacts on earthworm population abun-
dance and diversity – implications for functioning in soils, “Soil & Tillage Research”,
57, p. 179-191.
Chauhan B.S. - Singh R.G. - Mahajan G. (2012), Ecology and management of
weeds under conservation agriculture: A review, “Crop Protection”, 38, p. 57-65.
Curran W.S. - Lingenfelter D.D. - Garling L. - Wagoner P. (2006), Cover
Crops for Conservation Tillage Systems, The Pennsylvania State University, Conser-
vation Tillage Series, 5.
Dayan F.E. - Owens D.K. - Duke S.O. (2012), Rationale for a natural products ap-
proach to herbicide discovery, “Pest Management Science”, 68, p. 519-528.
Dazzi C. (ed.) (2011), La percezione del Suolo, Le Penseur, Brienza (PZ).
De Castro P. (2011), Corsa alla terra. Cibo e agricoltura nell’era della nuova scarsità,
Donzelli Editore, Roma.
De Castro P. (2015), Cibo. La sfida globale, Donzelli Editore, Roma.
de Paul Obade - Lal R. (2014), Soil quality evaluation under different land manage-
ment practices, “Environmental Earth Sciences”, 72(11), p. 4531-4549.
Derpsch R. (2008), No-Tillage & Mulch Cover, “The Journal of No-Till Agricul-
ture”, 7(2), p. 422-430.
Derpsch R. - Franzluebbers A.J. - Duiker S.W. - Reicosky D.C. - Koeller K.
- Friedrich T. - Sturny W.G. - Sa J.C.M. - Weiss K. (2014), Why do we need to
standardize no-tillage research, “Soil & Tillage Research”, 137, p. 16-22.
Dick W.A - Mccoy E.L. - Edwards W.M. - Lal R. (1991), Continuous application
of no-tillage to Ohio soils, “Agronomy Journal”, 83, p. 65-73.
Doran J.W. - Parkin T.B. (1994), Defining and assessing soil quality, in Defining soil
quality for a sustainable environment, “SSSA”, Spec. Publ. 35, SSSA - ASA, Madison
(WI), USA, p. 3-21.
Dormaar J.F. - Carefoot J.M. (1996), Implication of crop residue and conservation
tillage on soil organic matter, “Canadian Journal of Plant Science”, 76, p. 627-634.
ECAF (2012), Making sustainable agriculture real in CAP 2020. The Role of Conser-
vation Agriculture, European Conservation Agriculture Federation, http://www.
ecaf.org/downloads/booklets/11-ca-and-cap-2020/file, Accessed July 2015.
Ercoli L. - Masoni A. - Pampana S. (2005), Weed suppression by winter cover crops,
“Allelopathy Journal”, 16, p. 273–278.
Eriksen-Hamel N.S. - Speratti A.B. - Whalen J.K. - Légère A. (2009), Earth-
worm populations and growth rates related to long-term crop residue and tillage manage-
ment, “Soil & Tillage Research”, 104, p. 311-316.
368 VINCENZO TABAGLIO - CRISTINA GANIMEDE - GIUSEPPE BERTONI

FAO / Food and Agriculture Organization (2004), The ethics of sustainable

agricultural intensification, Rome.
FAO / Food and Agriculture Organization (2009a), How to Feed the World.
2050 High-Level Expert Forum, Rome, 12-13 October 2009.
FAO / Food and Agriculture Organization (2009b), Profile for climate change,
Rome.
FAO / Food and Agriculture Organization (2011), Save and grow. A policy-
maker’s guide to the sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production, Rome.
FAO / Food and Agriculture Organization (2012), What is Conservation Ag-
riculture?, www.fao.org/ag/ca/1a.html, Accessed July 2015.
FAO / Food and Agriculture Organization (2015a), CA Adoption Worldwide,
Fao Aquastat database, www.fao.org/ag/ca/6c.html, Accessed July 2015.
FAO / Food and Agriculture Organization (2015b), The State of Food Inse-
curity in the World. Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of une-
ven progress, Rome.
FAOSTAT (2012), http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx#ancor, Ac-
cessed July 2015.
Fermont A.M. - van Asten P.J.A. - Tittonell P. - van Wijk M.T. - Giller K.E.
(2009), Closing the cassava yield gap: An analysis from smallholder farms in East Afri-
ca, “Field Crops Research”, 112, p. 24-36.
Gadanakis Y. - Bennett R. - Park J. - Areal F.J. (2015), Evaluating the Sustain-
able Intensification of arable farms, “Journal of Environmental Management”, 150,
p. 288-298.
Garnett T. - Appleby M.C. - Balmford A. - Bateman I.J. - Benton T.G. -
Bloomer P. - Burlingame B. - Dawkins M. - Dolan L. - Fraser D. - Herrero
M. - Hoffmann I. - Smith P. - Thornton P.K. - Toulmin C. - Vermeulen S.J. -
Godfray H.C.J. (2013), Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises and poli-
cies, “Science”, 341, p. 33-34.
Gavazzi C. - Schulz M. - Marocco A. - Tabaglio V. (2010), Sustainable weed
control by allelochemicals from rye cover crops: from the greenhouse to field evidence, “Al-
lelopathy Journal”, 25, p. 259–273.
Gebbers R. - Adamchuk V.I. (2010), Precision Agriculture and Food Security, “Sci-
ence”, 327, p. 828-831.
Giardini L. (2012), L’Agronomia per conservare il futuro, Pàtron Editore, Bologna.
Glover D. (2011), Science, practice and the System of Rice Intensification in Indian ag-
riculture, “Food Policy”, 36, p. 749-755.
González-Sánchez E.J. - Veroz-González O. - Blanco-Roldán G.L. -
Márquez-García F. - Carbonell-Bojollo R. (2015), A renewed view of conser-
vation agriculture and its evolution over the last decade in Spain, “Soil & Tillage Re-
search”, 146, p. 204-212.
THE SOIL AND FIELD CROP PRODUCTION 369

Hobbs P.R. (2007), Conservation agriculture: what is it and why is it important for fu-
ture sustainable food production?, “Journal of Agricultural Science”, 145, p. 127-137.
Huggins D.R. - Reganold J.P. (2008), No-Till: the Quiet Revolution, “Scientific
American”, 299(1), p. 70-77.
IFAD / International Fund for Agricultural Development (2010), Rap-
porto sulla povertà rurale 2011, Roma.
IPCC / Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014), Climate
Change 2014. Impacts, Adoption, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectorial As-
pects, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York.
Jabran K. - Mahajan G. - Sardana V. - Chauhan B.S. (2015), Allelopathy for
weed control in agricultural systems, “Crop Protection”, 72, p. 57-65.
Jeffery S. - Gardi C. - Jones A. - Montanarella L. - Marmo L. - Miko L. -
Ritz K. - Peres G. - Römbke J. - van der Putten W.H. (eds.) (2010), European
Atlas of Soil Biodiversity, European Commission, Publications Office of the Euro-
pean Union, Luxembourg.
Jordan C.F. (2013), An Ecosystem Approach to Sustainable Agriculture, Springer,
Dordrechty.
Kassam A. - Friedrich T. - Shaxson F. - Bartz H. - Mello I. - Kienzle J. -
Pretty J. (2014), The spread of Conservation Agriculture: policy and institutional sup-
port for adoption and uptake, “Field Actions Science Reports”, 7, http:// factsre-
ports.revues.org/3720. Accessed July 2015.
Kladivko E.J. (2001), Tillage systems and soil ecology, “Soil & Tillage Research”,
61, p. 61-76.
Knowler D. - Bradshaw B. (2007), Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A
review and synthesis of recent research, “Food Policy”, 32, p. 25-48.
Koskinen W.C. - McWhorter C.G. (1986), Weed control in conservational tillage,
“Journal of Soil and Water Conservation”, 41, p. 365-370.
Lal R. (2008), Soils and sustainable agriculture. A review, “Agronomy for Sustaina-
ble Development”, 28, p. 57-64.
Lal R. (2014), Societal value of soil carbon, “Journal of Soil and Water Conserva-
tion”, 69(6), p. 186A-192A.
Lal R. (2015a), Sequestering carbon and increasing productivity by conservation agri-
culture, “Journal of Soil and Water Conservation”, 70(3), p. 55A-62A.
Lal R. (2015b), A system approach to conservation agriculture, “Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation”, 70(4), p. 82A-88A.
Lal R. (2015c), Sustainable Intensification for Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate
Change and Advancement of Food Security in Africa, in Lal R. - Singh B.R. - Mwase-
370 VINCENZO TABAGLIO - CRISTINA GANIMEDE - GIUSEPPE BERTONI

ba D.L. - Kraybill D. - Hansen D.O. - Eik L.O. (eds.), Sustainable Intensifica-

tion Advance Food Security and Enhance Climate Resilience in Africa, Springer Inter-
national Publishing, Switzerland, pp. 3-17.
Lal R. - Singh B.R. - Mwaseba D.L. - Kraybill D. - Hansen D.O. - Eik L.O.
(eds.) (2015), Sustainable Intensification Advance Food Security and Enhance Climate
Resilience in Africa, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland.
Landers J.N. - Rass G. - de Freitas P.L. - Basch G. - González Sanchez E.J. -
Tabaglio V. - Kassam A. - Derpsch R. - Friedrich T. (2013), Effects of Zero Till-
age (No-Till) Conservation Agriculture on soil physical and biological properties and their
contributions to sustainability, “Geophysical Research Abstracts”, 15, Wien.
Liaghat S. - Balasundram S.K. (2010), A Review: The Role of Remote Sensing in
Precision Agriculture, “American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences”,
5(1), p. 50-55.
Lowenberg-DeBoer J. - Swinton S. (1997), Economics of site-specific management
in agronomic crops, in Pierce F. - Sadler E. (eds.), The State of Site-Specific Manage-
ment for Agriculture, ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, Wisconsin, p. 369-396.
Mtengeti E.J. - Brentrup F. - Mtengeti E. - Eik L.O. - Chambuya R. (2015),
Sustainable Intensification of Maize and Rice in Smallholder Farming Systems Under Cli-
mate Change in Tanzania, in Lal R. - Singh B.R. - Mwaseba D.L. - Kraybill D.
- Hansen D.O. - Eik L.O. (eds.), Sustainable Intensification Advance Food Security
and Enhance Climate Resilience in Africa, Springer International Publishing, Swit-
zerland, pp. 441-465.
Odum E.P. - Barrett G.W. (2007), Fondamenti di Ecologia, Piccin, Padova.
OECD-FAO (2013), Agricultural Outlook 2013-2022, Rome.
Peigné J. - Cannavaciuolo M. - Gautronneau Y. - Aveline A. - Giteau J.L. -
Cluzeau D. (2009), Earthworm populations under different tillage systems in organic
farming, “Soil & Tillage Research”, 104, p. 207-214.
Pisante M. - Stagnari F. - Grant C.A. (2012), Agricultural innovations for sus-
tainable crop production intensification, “Italian Journal of Agronomy”, 7(e40), p.
300-311.
Pisante M. - Santilocchi R. - Tabaglio V. (2014), CO2 Sequestration From Ital-
ian Cultivated Land: Opportunities, Challenges and Risks, in Basch G. - González-
Sánchez E.J. - Kassam A. - Triviño-Tarradas P. - Holgado-Cabrera A. (eds.),
Green Carbon: Making sustainable agriculture real, European Conservation Agricul-
ture Federation (ECAF), Brussels, p. 19.
Pretty J. (2008), Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence, “Phil-
osophical Transactions of the Royal Society”, B 363, p. 447-465.
Ramírez-García J. - Carrillo J.M. - Ruiz M. - Alonso-Ayuso M. - Quemada
M. (2015), Multicriteria decision analysis applied to cover crop species and cultivars se-
lection, “Field Crops Research”, 175, p. 106-115.
THE SOIL AND FIELD CROP PRODUCTION 371

Rice E.L. (1984), Allelopathy, Academic Press, Orlando, Florida, 2nd ed.
Smeda R.J. - Weller S.C. (1996), Potential of rye (Secale cereale) for weed manage-
ment in transplant tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum), “Weed Science”, 44, p. 596-
602.
Sommer R. - Thierfelder C. - Tittonell P. - Hovee L. - Mureithi J. - Mkom-
wa S. (2014), Fertilizer use should not be a fourth principle to define conservation agri-
culture, Response to the opinion paper of Vanlauwe et al. (2014) A fourth princi-
ple is required to define conservation agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: The appropriate
use of fertilizer to enhance crop productivity, “Field Crop Research”, 169, p. 145-148.
Tabaglio V. (2013), Gestione del suolo, in Pisante M. (ed.), Agricoltura sosteni-
bile. Principi, sistemi e tecnologie applicate all’agricoltura produttiva per la salvaguardia
dell’ambiente e la tutela climatica, Il Sole 24 Ore - Edagricole, Bologna, p. 93-123.
Tabaglio V. - Gavazzi C. - Menta C. (2008a), The Influence of No-Till, Conven-
tional Tillage and Nitrogen Fertilization on Physico-Chemical and Biological Indicators
After Three Years of Monoculture Barley, “Italian Journal of Agronomy / Rivista di
Agronomia”, 4, p. 233-240.
Tabaglio V. - Gavazzi C. - Schulz M. - Marocco A. (2008b), Alternative weed
control using the allelopathic effect of natural benzoxazinoids from rye mulch, “Agrono-
my for Sustainable Development”, 28, p. 397-401.
Tabaglio V. - Gavazzi C. - Menta C. (2009), Physico-chemical indicators and mi-
croarthropod communities as influenced by no-till, conventional tillage and nitrogen fer-
tilisation after four years of continuous maize, “Soil & Tillage Research”, 105, p. 135-
142.
Tabaglio V. - Trettenero A. (2012), Quando l’agricoltura è conservativa, “Origi-
ne”, 12(3), p. 6-8.
Tabaglio V. - Marocco A. - Schulz M. (2013), Allelopathic cover crop of rye for
integrated weed control in sustainable agroecosystems, “Italian Journal of Agronomy”,
8, p. 35-40.
Thomas F. - Archambeaud M. (2013), Les couverts végétaux. Gestion pratique de
l’interculture, Editions France Agricole, Paris.
Vanlauwe B. - Wendt J. - Giller K.E. - Corbeels M. - Gerard B. - Nolte C.
(2014), A fourth principle is required to define Conservation Agriculture in sub-Saharan
Africa: The appropriate use of fertilizer to enhance crop productivity, “Field Crop Re-
search”, 155, p. 10-13.
Varejão E.V.V. - Demuner A.J. - Barbosa L.C.A. - Barreto R.W. (2013), The
search for new natural herbicides - Strategic approaches for discovering fungal phytotox-
ins, “Crop Protection”, 48, p. 41-50.
Wani S.P. - Sreedevi T.K. - Rockström J. - Ramakrishna Y.S. (2009), Rainfed
Agriculture – Past Trends and Future Prospects, in Wani S.P. - Rockström J. - Oweis
372 VINCENZO TABAGLIO - CRISTINA GANIMEDE - GIUSEPPE BERTONI

T. (eds.), Rainfed Agriculture: Unlocking the Potential, CAB International, Walling-

ford, UK, pp. 1-35.
Weston L.A. (1996), Utilization of Allelopathy For Weed Management in Agroecosys-
tems, “Agronomy Journal”, 88, p. 860-866.
Wezel A. - Casagrande M. - Celette F. - Vian J.-F. - Ferrer A. - Peigné J.
(2014), Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review, “Agronomy for
Sustainable Development”, 34, p. 1-20.
World Bank Group (2014), State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2014, ECOFYS,
Washington DC.
Worldwatch Institute (2011), State of the World. Nutrire il Pianeta, Edizioni
Ambiente, Milano.
Wortman S.E - Francis C.A. - Bernards M.L. - Drijber R.A. - Lindquist J.L.
(2012), Optimizing Cover Crop Benefits with Diverse Mixtures and an Alternative Ter-
mination Method, “Agronomy Journal”, 104(5), p. 1425-1435.

KEYWORDS: Conservation Agriculture; sustainable crop production intensifi-

cation; soil fertility.

ABSTRACT
Field crop production has a primary role in ensuring the availability of food
for the world population. Global awareness of some critical factors has brought
about the need to profoundly revise current agricultural production systems
in both developed and developing countries. In fact, agroecosystems are being
orientated towards practices that aim to conserve the soil, a non-renewable re-
source, as well as preserving the organic matter contained within it, triggering a
new model of development in agriculture that is identified by the term Sustain-
able Agriculture (SA).
Among the management systems that are alternatives to conventional agricul-
ture, SA represents one the most advanced systems, in rapid and continuous
evolution. In developed countries, SA integrates modern techniques of soil
management, irrigation and weed and pest control, and aims to conserve cur-
rent high production levels while also conserving the environment. In develop-
ing countries, SA inserts innovative techniques into the traditional agricultur-
al systems; innovations that are compatible with the environmental sustainabili-
ty and with the acceptance by the rural people and the social-economic system.
In both cases, the new or revised agricultural practices must keep soil fertility
and soil water retention in the forefront and promote an increase in soil organ-
ic matter and a more efficient water management.
Agriculture of the future must therefore target conservation and restoration of
the natural resources and it must strengthen the capacity of the agroecosystem
to adapt to changes, especially where over-exploitation of the agroecosystem is
already causing production levels to fall.
THE SOIL AND FIELD CROP PRODUCTION 373

RIASSUNTO
Le produzioni erbacee hanno un ruolo primario nell’assicurare la disponibilità
di alimenti per la popolazione mondiale. La presa di coscienza globale di alcu-
ne criticità ha fatto emergere la necessità di una profonda revisione degli attuali
sistemi di produzione agricola, sia nei Paesi sviluppati, sia nei Paesi in via di svi-
luppo. Infatti, gli agroecosistemi si stanno orientando verso pratiche che mira-
no alla conservazione del suolo, risorsa non rinnovabile, e alla sostanza organi-
ca in esso contenuta, innescando un nuovo modello di sviluppo in agricoltura
che si sta identificando con il temine di Agricoltura Sostenibile (AS).
Tra i sistemi di gestione alternativi all’agricoltura convenzionale, l’AS rappre-
senta uno dei modelli più avanzati, in continua e rapida evoluzione. Nei Paesi
sviluppati essa integra moderne tecniche di gestione del suolo, di irrigazione, di
controllo delle infestanti e dei parassiti, avendo di mira in particolare la conser-
vazione degli alti livelli produttivi e dell’ambiente. Nei Paesi in via di sviluppo,
invece, i sistemi agricoli tradizionali andranno corroborati dall’innesto di inno-
vazioni tecniche compatibili non solo con la sostenibilità ambientale, ma anche
e soprattutto con la capacità di accettazione tecnologica da parte della popola-
zione e del sistema socio-economico rurale. Le pratiche agricole saranno rivisi-
tate enfatizzando la fertilità e la capacità di ritenzione idrica dei suoli, promuo-
vendo l’aumento della sostanza organica e una gestione dell’acqua maggior-
mente efficiente.
Risulta, quindi, prioritario che l’agricoltura del futuro si orienti alla conser-
vazione e al ripristino delle risorse naturali e al rafforzamento della capacità
dell’agroecosistema di adattarsi ai cambiamenti, soprattutto laddove si stanno
registrando perdite di produzione imputabili al sovrasfruttamento dell’agroe-
cosistema.
View publication stats