<<

Sustainable

by Paul F. O'Connell, Deputy Administrator, Cooperative Research Service, USDA, Wasliington, DC

In the , as in other many positive aspects of today's industrialized countries, farming agriculture. practices are being reexamined. The unforeseen costs of con- Consumers of and fiber, ventional agriculture include not many , and various envi- only these , ronmentalists are expressing con- but also the economic risks and cerns about how modern losses experienced by a great agriculture is being practiced. many farmers during the early Agriculture should welcome 1980's, when foreign demand for this increased interest. Modern U.S. products stagnated and agriculture has done a tremen- values plunged. A few years dous job of providing high-quality ago, "" was seen as and reasonably priced food for consumers. All you have to do is visit any supermarket to realize the tremendous variety of prod- ucts available. One of the first things Eastern Europeans look for when they visit the West is the broad selection of food supplies available. But changes can be made to re- spond to health and safety issues, such as persistent and a loss of natural soil productivity; contamination of ground water by agricultural chemicals; residues in food; growing resis- tance to by and other pests; loss of genetic diver- Neil Eash and Aaron Steinwand, ARS research sity; depletion of water associates, examine a soil core sample. Samples will be analyzed to see tiow and other supplies; aggravated ; and are distributed, and to locate the loss of fish and wildlife habi- accumulations from decaying organic matter. tat. Improvements in these areas Lowell Georgia/USDA 89BW1229-10 can occur without disrupting the

Agriculture and the Environment 175 an environmental issue, but the and animal production prac- economic questions that grew out tices having a site-specific appli- of the farm financial crisis of the cation that will, over the long last decade expanded the defini- term: satisfy food and fi- tion to include an economic com- ber needs; enhance environmental ponent. While the circumstances quality and the surrounding that situation were base upon which the agricultural unusual, the future could bring depends; make the most similar shocks, such as a cutoff of efficient use of nonrenewable re- petroleum or a jump in costs of sources and on-farm resources -based inputs as and integrate, where appropriate, global supplies dwindle. natural biological cycles and con- Different people have different trols; sustain the economic viabil- viewpoints on these issues. For ity of farm operations; and example, in the case of pesticide enhance the quality of life for residues and ground water con- farmers and society as a whole." tamination, there is evidence to Sustainable farming practices support or to refute the claim that vary from farm to farm but com- a major problem exists. But it is monly include: true that a great many people be- • rotations that mitigate lieve these problems are serious. , disease, insects, and The benefits of sustainable agri- other pest problems; provide do not rise or fall on evi- alternative sources of soil nitro- dence for or against these con- gen; reduce ; and cerns. Much of the public's grow- reduce risk of water contamina- ing interest in sustainability is a tion by agricultural chemicals. reaction to the sum total of unan- • strategies that are ticipated consequences of modern not harmful to natural systems, agriculture. farmers, their neighbors, or The public wants an agricul- consumers. This includes inte- ture that will not only be produc- grated pest management tech- tive and profitable, but that will niques that reduce the need for also conserve resources, protect pesticides by practices such as the environment, and enhance the scouting, use of resistant culti- health and safety of the public. vars, timing of planting, and That's what is meant by sustain- biological pest controls (see able agriculture. chapter 21). • Increased mechanical and bio- Definition logical control; more soil As defined by Congress in the and prac- 1990 farm bill, sustainable agri- tices; and strategic use of ani- culture is "an integrated system of mal and green

176 Part IV ( used to add nutrients is the 's choice. However, and organic matter to the soil). it is not limited to that option. • Selection of synthetic chemi- Wise and conservative use of syn- cals whose use poses no signifi- thetic chemicals is also compat- cant hazard to , ible with the goals of sustainable animals, or the environment. agriculture. focuses on an integrated approach to the Activities Underway in USDA science and art of farm manage- USDA agencies have been ad- ment. This approach encom- dressing some aspects of sustain- passes the whole farm, relying on able agriculture for some time. In the expertise of farmers, interdis- addition, several agencies are re- ciplinary teams of , and directing their programs to more specialists from the public and effectively incorporate sustainable private sectors. for agriculture attributes into them. an individual crop or Research and . enterprise can be essential compo- USDA research and education in nents of sustainable agriculture. sustainable agriculture are of two Standing alone, however, the general types—component and components do not provide suffi- whole farm. The component ac- cient answers. tivities are those concerned with If they are to be effective, re- the cause-and-effect relationships sults of research and education underlying specific farming prob- programs must be presented in a lems, and the development of par- practical, easily understood ticular technologies, equipment, framework that will enable the practices, and crop and livestock farmer to make informed choices varieties. The whole-farm activi- among various societal and indi- ties deal with the total picture, in- vidual goals—such as income, cluding the farmer's goals and yields, environment, , resources, and the interactions of and risk aversion. all farming practices. Each makes This approach to farming uses an essential contribution. the wisdom of the past, combined USDA's Agricultural Research with today's improved knowledge Service is currently spending about biological, ecological, and about $11 million annually for economic processes. In essence it sustainable agriculture research in looks for complements between the whole-farm category. About production and environmental $83 million is devoted annually to goals. This type of farming can research on components of sus- include farming without manufac- tainable systems, such as biologi- tured chemicals (commonly cal pest controls and integrated known as ), if that pest management, crop varieties

Agriculture and the Environment 177 that will be more resistant to or tural Experiment Stations to pro- tolerant of pests, diseases, vide research on farming systems , acid , and air pollu- that help U.S. farmers meet their tion; prediction and control of soil site-specific needs. The most re- erosion; management and cent estimate indicates that $76 crop rotations to reduce water million is being spent on impor- pollution, enhance yields, and re- tant components of sustainable duce farmers' dependence on agri- agriculture. This includes such cultural chemicals; and improved topics as crop breeding, - productive capacity of soils ing, and biological and cultural through incorporation of agricul- control methods for pests, includ- tural, municipal, and industrial ing research and wastes. integrated pest management The Cooperative State Re- (IPM). search Service has a long history CSRS also administers the Sus- of partnership with State Agricul-

Closeup of a Buffalo ridge tiller. Lowell Georgia/USDA 89BW1230-2

178 Pari IV Technology tamable Agriculture Research and vice. All of the State Cooperative Education program previously Extension Services conduct pro- known as Low Input Sustainable grams contributing to agricultural Agriculture (LISA). This program sustainability. These include was first funded at $3.9 million in educational programs on IPM, soil 1988 and has grown to $6.7 mil- testing and fertility management, lion in 1991. Matching funds pesticide management, soil con- from successful applicants have servation, protec- more than doubled the amount of tion, and farm management. research and education activity. Extension personnel in several The focus of these projects is on States have also developed com- integrated crop and animal pro- prehensive programs linked to duction systems, or whole-farm research and on-farm demonstra- management systems. tions. In the 3 years since this pro- USDA's Extension Service has gram began, it has funded 100 had a lead role in developing a team projects, plus 9 planning nationwide "farmer-friendly" grants and 45 renew^als. To date, computer software package under 1,860 farmers have participated in the direction of Extension per- the funded projects. Hundreds of sonnel at the University of Mis- farmers have helped generate souri. Called the Farm Decision ideas for these projects and have Support System, this project inte- provided land for studies and grates the findings of plant and demonstration plots. They also animal sciences, economics, and helped manage the projects and environmental studies into a pro- over 500 evaluated the outcomes. cess that enables farmers to make Most importantly, farmers are ac- informed choices about the adop- tively involved in the leadership tion of sustainable farming prac- of the program, helping to decide tices. This innovative system has which projects to fund. been partially supported by the As the project results become SARE program. available, they will be dissemi- Extension is also pioneering a nated to farmers through special computerized information deliv- reports, publications, and video ery system to make research avail- presentations, and through exist- able to farmers. ing channels such as the State Co- The National Agricultural Li- operative Extension System and brary plays a critical role through the Service. its Alternative Farming Systems The Sustainable Agriculture Information Center, authorized in Research and Education (SARE) the 1985 Food Act and program is carried out by collabo- supported in part with SARE ration with the Extension Ser- funds. Since its establishment 5

Agriculture and the Environment 179 years ago, the number of inquiries literature searches to people pre- and requests for information on paring applications for sustain- sustainable farming handled by able agriculture research and the center has increased tenfold. education grants. The center not only serves as a The Economic Research Ser- clearinghouse for information, but vice does national and regional re- has also produced timely publica- search on a number of natural tions. They include a directory of resource and technology issues re- educational and training opportu- lated to sustainability. Studies nities in sustainable agriculture now underway are examining the and a series of bibliographies on effects on costs and profitability of sustainable farming topics, from different levels of chemical use on composting, green manures, and Corn Belt , and the economic cover to how to capitalize impacts of banning or restricting on allelopathy—the toxicity of the use of certain chemical pesti- certain to weeds. The lat- cides and . est service introduced at the cen- ter offers on-line computerized

Doug Karlen (left), soil at the ARS National Soil Tilth Laboratory, Ames, lA, and Research Associate Neal Eash (right), study the profile of the needle board. When the board with solid wires projecting below it is placed over the tilled rows and then lowered, the top of the needle measures the roughness of the soil surface. Lowell Georgia/USDA 89BW1229-19

180 Part IV Technology Programs of Action Agencies. partially compensating up to 20 The challenge of ensuring sustain- farmers in each of 5 counties per ability is no stranger to the USDA State that participate in the pro- Soil Conservation Service (SCS). gram (see box). ses and the professional conser- The second way ASCS contrib- vation network that reaches into utes is through administration of virtually every county have fos- support programs for major crops. tered resource conservation and To the extent permitted by exist- environmental protection for over ing legislation, ASCS gives farm- 50 years. The agency offers farm- ers who enroll in major crop ers a wide range of technical as- programs as much latitude as pos- sistance and cost-sharing sible in growing rotation crops, programs to help them develop without incurring a loss of their environmentally and economi- base acres and program payments. cally sustainable practices. ASCS plays a third and very With the broadening of support significant role in carrying out the for sustainable agriculture in the cross compliance provisions of 1985 Act, SCS has the support program. done more to address the need for Farmers must plan and imple- sustainability. For example, in ment effective and 1989, the agency added to its wetland management practices in handbook of conservation prac- the Conservation Reserve Program tices two new standards involving to remain eligible to receive sup- nutrient and pest management. port payments. The new standards examine the The Animal and Plant Health amount of chemical fertilizers and Inspection Service continues to pesticides actually needed on support a more sustainable agri- farms, thereby reducing the poten- culture through its operation of tial for ground water contamina- programs. tion and chemical runoff. Now funded at $10 million annu- The Agricultural Stabilization ally, these programs aim to con- and Conservation Service con- trol the Mediterranean fly, tributes to agricultural screw worm, boll weevil, Gypsy sustainability in three different , Africanized honey , and ways. fire ant. First, in 1990, ASCS launched Presidents' Water Quality a new pilot program permitting Initiative. Individual agency pro- cost-sharing of conservation prac- grams to foster a more environ- tices that encourage lower appli- mentally and economically sound cations of chemical pesticides and agriculture are complemented by fertilizers. Called the Integrated interagency efforts. The Presi- Crop Management program, it is dent's Water Quality Initiative

Agriculture and the Environment 181 (see Chapter 12) is an interagency, policymakers to discuss progress interdepartmental program to de- in sustainable agriculture research velop, test, and deliver to farmers and education efforts across the information on crop and livestock United States. The following re- management systems that reduce ports are highlights of the confer- the risk of agricultural chemicals ence: reaching water supplies, particu- • A team of scientists at South larly ground water. The initiative Dakota State University started is bringing together the contribu- a study in 1985, tions of 11 USD A agencies - comparing conventional farm- ing in partnership with the State ing, a choice of ridge or Agricultural Experiment Stations, minimum tillage, and a crop ro- the State Cooperative Extension tation approach. The study Services, and six other Federal de- now includes experimental partments and agencies. plots at two locations. Water- and Madison. When this Some Findings study became a sustainable re- In April 1990, the Board on Agri- search and education project in culture of the National Academy 1988, the scope of investiga- of Sciences held a conference for tions was expanded to include scientists, innovative farmers, and whole-farm studies on several

Integrated Crop Management preservation and improvement in the The integrated Crop Management (ICM) natural fertility of the soil, prevention and program helps farmers develop an overall abatement of agriculture-related pollution, crop management system that promotes increased farm efficiency, and conserva- the efficient use of agricultural inputs in an tion of . environmentally sound and profitable manner. It is adminstered by the Why ICM? Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva- Each year, over 20 billion pounds of tion Service (ASCS) as part of the fertilizers and 1.1 billion pounds of Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP). pesticides are applied to U.S. land. Further, The ÍCM practice is designed to over 95 percent of rural Americans de- encourage the adoption of farming pend on wells as their sole source of methods that integrate many farming drinking water. ICM practices are some of activities into a management system. It the most effective means of reducing run- encourages producers to try different off and see page of nutrients and pesti- approaches of production by providing cides that affect water quality. financial assistance to help defray the —by Jim Lucas, Assistant to the Director costs and overcome the risks of changing of Information, ASCS, USDA, production methods. The long-term , DC benefits of the ICM practice will be

182 Part IV Technology cooperating farms, biological they require use of more on- control of pests, nutrient cy- farm inputs, such as legumes in cling, and soil properties. a crop rotation to satisfy nutri- Economists on the project team ent and pest control needs. At have adapted the experimental the Watertown site this farming findings from the first 3 years approach was estimated to earn to develop preliminary esti- a profit of about $4,900, using a mates of the net returns that crop rotation of oats, , would be earned by a typical , and spring . of 540 tillable The simulated farms using a acres. conventional rotation (corn, During the drought of 1988, the soybeans, and spring wheat), only approach tested in this with chemical pesticides and South Dakota study and ex- conventional tillage, incurred pected to earn a profit vi^as the net losses of about $23,000 and lower input farming system. $25,000—a difference of about Lower input refers to less pur- $30,000 compared with the chased inputs, but very often lower input system. At the

Farmer Dick Thompson, a proponent of ridge tillage, cultivates his study plot. He says ridge tillage eliminates the need for fall and spring preplant tillage. Lowell Georgia/USDA 89BW1230-33

Agriculture and the Environment 183 Madison site, the differences ronmental impact and lessen were smaller. water quality risk associated • In view of consumer concerns with control of corn rootworm, over pesticide residues on Agricultural Research Service , scientists in Georgia and scientists in South Dakota de- Virginia developed alternative vised a bait that is a starch methods of controlling crystal containing about 2 tea- diseases and pests. In- spoons per of the insecti- stead of relying on heavy pre- cide carbaryl. While this is ventive spraying to control the only about 2 percent of the nor- fungus diseases sooty blotch mal dosage, tests in the labora- and flyspeck, these scientists tory and in cages under developed a post- tech- controlled conditions have nique for dipping the fruit in a found that the bait kills up to household bleach solution. 94 percent of the adult corn Sooty blotch was completely rootworms, with no harm to removed, and flyspeck was re- nontarget species. The bait duced by 73 percent. When contains two kinds of semio- sprayed fruit is dipped in chemicals (behavioral modifi- bleach solution, virtually all cation chemicals). The first is the residues of are an attractant that lures the removed. Growers have also adult corn rootworms [both found that major insect pests males and females) to find the are effectively controlled by starch granules scattered about pheromone disruption plus a the field. The second semio- single well-timed spray. Alter- chemical is a feeding stimulant native-row spraying and made from a bitter herb that is ground cover management help delicious to the corn worm conserve natural enemies of the but repugnant to most nontar- pests and reduce the need for get species such as . Full- sprays. The overall pest con- scale field tests of the bait trol system developed in this under actual farming condi- study achieved equal or better tions are underway in several control of insect and disease in- States. jur)^ compared with SCS Geor- • Some farmers have found that gia Technical Field Guide when they adopt lower input recommendations, while reduc- methods, including careful ing the number of sprays from management, gross returns de- 19 to 9.5, and reducing pest crease slightly but net returns control costs from $247 to $99 increase. For example, a study per acre. of Illinois farmers covering 6 • In an effort to reduce the envi- years (1982-87) found that

184 Part IV Technoiogy farmers using the highest income per acre of farms at the amounts of purchased inputs high level was $94.65. Results per acre harvested more bush- for central Illinois farms are in els—^but earned less profit per figure 1. acre—compared with farmers Whether a specific farmer using less purchased inputs per could enhance profits while re- acre. The study examined data ducing pesticide and in- from a sample of 201 central puts is a complex question. The Illinois farms drawn from the answer depends on the farm's University of Illinois farm crop history, soil productivity, records system. The farms previous input use, management were ranked according to their ability, weather, and a variety of per-acre expenditures for com- other factors such as weed and mercial fertilizers and agricul- plant . tural chemicals, and the top In southern Illinois, by con- one-fourth of the farms in this trast, the category of farms with ranking were considered the higher fertilizer and chemical in- "high-input" group. The puts had the greater net return. quartile of farms having the This situation readily points out lowest expenditure per acre is the need for site-specific informa- the "low-input" group. The net tion. farm income per acre of farms with the lowest expenditures The Challenge Ahead for fertilizer and chemicals was What USDA is doing to foster sus- $121.17, whereas the net farm tainable agriculture, in fact what most agricultural institutions are doing, is but the start of a process Figure 1. Farm income vs, fertilizer & that will have no end. chemical costs for sample of 201 Sustainability is an , a central Illinois farms goal, whose pursuit requires a Q 1 Farm income \:M:A Fertilizer & ciiemical costs substantial change in the way we $/acre 140 r- think about farming. It calls for 120 - 1 1 new interactions and new associa- 100 - 1—1 tions. The continuing search for a 80 - 60 - sustainable agriculture will never 40 ~ fr| be easy. But the importance of 20 11 that search will always over- ;:':-1 _ 1 _ m 1 1 Low Low-Mid Mid-High High shadow the difficulties and disap- Range of fertilizer & chemical costs pointments encountered along the way. ■ *Source: "Farm Profitability and Input Use," by Kevin W. Koenigstein, Robert H. Hornbal

Agriculture and the Environment 185