Research Regarding the Influence of Folliar Fertilization on Plant Assimilation, Grain Yield and Quality of Wheat, in the Transylvanian Field Conditions

Bărdaș, Marius; Chețan, Felicia; Kadar, Rozalia; Racz, I.; Șimon, Alina; Deac, Valeria; Popa, A.; Cheţan, Cornel

doi:10.15835/buasvmcn-hort:2019.0001

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While more long‐term assessment is needed, initial comparative experiments found stockfree methods to be more productive than conventional ones (Eisenbach et al . 2019). Moreover, the high thermodynamic efficiency (see Kolasi 2018; Hirth 2019a) of low‐livestock or stockfree operations is an opportunity to degrow animal agriculture and, thereby, provide sufficient amounts of quality food while freeing up land available for biodiversity protection or restoration, rather than just producing ever more food.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food that Matters: Boundary Work and the Case for Vegan Food Practices

Hirth

2020

Sociologia Ruralis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meat and, less so, dairy are contested for their significant ethical and social‐ecological impacts. Abjuring animal products, veganism is conventionally treated as a dietary ideology related to consumer identities. Drawing upon practice and materialist turns, this article explores variations in the performance of veganism and how its boundaries are drawn. Yet, rather than an eating practice, I suggest to look at veganism more broadly and conceptualised as a food practice which also involves provisioning. By example of stockfree organic agriculture (SOA), a production‐based, processual understanding is outlined by which plant foods are ‘vegan’ if animal by‐products are not used as fertilisers in crop cultivation. Thereof, a conceptual case is made to shift the focus away from veganism as a consumer identity and towards performative vegan food practices (VFP) as a global responsibility to reduce the ‘long shadow’ of livestock and maintain Earth as a relatively safe operating space.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food that Matters: Boundary Work and the Case for Vegan Food Practices

Hirth

2020

Sociologia Ruralis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The three experimental years showed a number of differences during the growing period of the winter wheat [41][42][43][44], which act as a supplementary source of variation in AM colonization potential. This allowed the monitoring of the arbuscular mycorrhiza profile both in response to applied fertilization and in response to the specific climate of each year.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arbuscular Mycorrhizas Traits and Yield of Winter Wheat Profiled by Mineral Fertilization

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our aim is to evaluate the changes in arbuscular mycorrhiza characteristics of winter wheat in a three-year experiment. Study results show that fertilizers produce strong variations in arbuscular mycorrhiza extension, with colonization frequency values within 76–98%. The intensity of colonization is only 12% when phosphorus (P) exceeds nitrogen (N) in autumn, but reaches 38% when the N:P ratio is equal. Root colonization shows no consistency from one experimental year to another, with the largest fluctuations recorded in colonization intensity (22–65%) and arbuscules abundance (0–5%). Arbuscules are maintained below 1% by fertilizer with more P than N. Colonization forecasting models indicate P as a factor for the reduction of symbiosis. Each kg of applied P can reduce the colonization frequency by 0.28% and intensity by 0.37%. The maximum of the colonization degree is 61% due to the synergy of equal N and P doses in autumn and ammonium nitrate applied in spring. The application of multiple moderate doses acts as a stimulant for the development of a large root-fungal interface.

show abstract

“…Academic and practitioner literature has favorably associated veganic approaches with various agronomic factors, including: yield, quality, nutrient cycling, soil nitrogen level, soil carbon storage, soil biology, soil organic matter, and energy inputs (Pimentel et al 2005 ; Cormack 2006 ; Hepperly et al 2006 ; Eisenbach et al 2018 ; Matsuura et al 2018 ; Eisenbach et al 2019 ; Roussis et al 2019 ; Rosato et al 2020 ; Utter and Seymour forthcoming) 3 ; sustainable agriculture or food systems (Hall and Tolhurst 2007 ; Visak 2007 ; Burnett 2014 ; Bonsall 2015 ; Hagemann and Potthast 2015 ; Hirth 2020 ; Kassam and Kassam 2021 ; Nobari 2021 ); food safety (O’Brien 1964 ; Seymour 2018a ; Alsanius et al 2019 ; Utter and Seymour forthcoming); diminished environmental impacts (Markussen et al 2014 ; Seymour 2018a ); marketing potential (Jürkenbeck et al 2019 ; Jürkenbeck and Spiller 2020 ); and “animal-friendly” (Visak 2007 ) and “post-lethal” (Mann 2020 ) agriculture. Despite the diversity of veganic methods and the ostensible benefits of veganic agriculture, there is relatively little scholarly literature on the topic , as has been noted by Hagemann and Potthast ( 2015 ), Schmutz and Foresi ( 2017 ), and Jürkenbeck et al ( 2019 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Veganic farming in the United States: farmer perceptions, motivations, and experiences

Seymour

Utter

2021

Agric Hum Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Veganic agriculture, often described as farming that is free of synthetic and animal-based inputs, represents an alternative to chemical-based industrial agriculture and the prevailing alternative, organic agriculture, respectively. Despite the promise of veganic methods in diverse realms such as food safety, environmental sustainability, and animal liberation, it has a small literature base. This article draws primarily on interviews conducted in 2018 with 25 veganic farmers from 19 farms in the United States to establish some baseline empirical research on this farming community. Its qualitative perspectives illuminate farmer perceptions of and experiences with veganic growing, including definitions, knowledge acquisition, values, and challenges. Results highlight a lack of agreement about the meaning of veganic agriculture in terms of allowable inputs and scope. Participants have drawn on a wide array of veganic and non-veganic resources to ascend their veganic production learning curves, also relying on experimentation and trial-and-error. Their farming is motivated by a diversity of real and perceived benefits, most notably consistency with veganism, food safety advantages, and plant and soil health benefits. Veganic product sourcing and the dearth of veganic agriculture-specific resources present considerable challenges to farmers. The article briefly discusses possibilities for developing veganic agriculture in the United States, such as through a US-based certification system and farmers’ associations, based on considerations of the trajectory of the US organic farming movement and veganic developments in Europe. Finally, the article suggests the importance of expanded research into soil health and fertility in plant-based systems to support practicing and potential veganic farmers.

show abstract

Research Regarding the Influence of Folliar Fertilization on Plant Assimilation, Grain Yield and Quality of Wheat, in the Transylvanian Field Conditions

Cited by 5 publications

References 7 publications

Food that Matters: Boundary Work and the Case for Vegan Food Practices

Food that Matters: Boundary Work and the Case for Vegan Food Practices

Arbuscular Mycorrhizas Traits and Yield of Winter Wheat Profiled by Mineral Fertilization

Veganic farming in the United States: farmer perceptions, motivations, and experiences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About