|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 3
E· _
xecutive summary
| N THE 1930S, CROP YIELDS in the United States, England, India, and Argen-
tina were essentially the same. Since that time, researchers, scientists,
and a host of federal policies have helped U.S. farmers dramatically increase
yields of corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, and most other major commodities.
Today, fewer farmers feed more people than ever before. This success, how-
ever, has not come without costs.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified agricul-
ture as the largest nonpoint source of surface water pollution. Pesticides
and nitrate from fertilizers are detected in the groundwater in many agri-
cultural regions. Soil erosion remains a concern in many states. Pest resis-
tance to pesticides continues to grow, and the problem of pesticide residues
in food has yet to be resolved. Purchased inputs have become a significant
part of total operating costs. Other nations have closed the productivity
gap and are more competitive in international markets. Federal farm pro-
gram costs have risen dramatically in recent years.
Because of these concerns, many farmers have begun to adopt alternative
practices with the goals of reducing input costs, preserving the resource
base, and protecting human health. The committee has reviewed the di-
mensions and structure of U.S. agriculture, its problems, and some of the
alternatives available to farmers to resolve them.
Many components of alternative agriculture are derived from conven-
tional agronomic practices and livestock husbandry. The hallmark of an
alternative farming approach is not the conventional practices it rejects but
the innovative practices it includes. In contrast to conventional farming,
however, alternative systems more deliberately integrate and take advantage
of naturally occurring beneficial interactions. Alternative systems empha-
size management; biological relationships, such as those between the pest
3
OCR for page 4
4
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
and predator; and natural processes, such as nitrogen fixation instead of
chemically intensive methods. The objective is to sustain and enhance rather
than reduce and simplify the biological interactions on which production
agriculture depends, thereby reducing the harmful off-farm effects of pro-
duction practices.
Alternative agriculture is any system of food or fiber production that
systematically pursues the following goals:
.
More thorough incorporation of natural processes such as nutrient cy-
cles, nitrogen fixation, and pest-predator relationships into the agricul-
tural production process;
Reduction in the use of off-farm inputs with the greatest potential to
harm the environment or the health of farmers and consumers;
Greater productive use of the biological and genetic potential of plant
and animal species;
Improvement of the match between cropping patterns and the produc-
tive potential and physical limitations of agricultural lands to ensure
long-term sustainability of current production levels; and
Profitable and efficient production with emphasis on improved farm
management and conservation of soil, water, energy, and biological
resources.
Alternative agriculture is not a single system of farming practices. It in-
cludes a spectrum of farming systems, ranging from organic systems that
attempt to use no purchased synthetic chemical inputs, to those involving
the prudent use of pesticides or antibiotics to control specific pests or
diseases. Alternative farming encompasses, but is not limited to, farming
systems known as biological, low-input, organic, regenerative, or sustain-
able. It includes a range of practices such as integrated pest management
(IPM); low-intensity animal production systems; crop rotations designed to
reduce pest damage, improve crop health, decrease soil erosion, and, in the
case of legumes, fix nitrogen in the soil; and tillage and planting practices
that reduce soil erosion and help control weeds. Alternative farmers incor-
porate these and other practices into their farming operations. Successful
alternative farmers do what all good managers do they apply management
skills and information to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and maintain
production levels.
Some examples of practices and principles emphasized in alternative sys-
tems include
.
Crop rotations that mitigate weed, disease, insect, and other pest prob-
lems; increase available soil nitrogen and reduce the need for purchased
fertilizers; and, in conjunction with conservation tillage practices, re-
duce soil erosion.
{PM, which reduces the need for pesticides by crop rotations, scouting,
weather monitoring, use of resistant cultivars, timing of planting, and
biological pest controls.
OCR for page 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
.
5
Management systems to control weeds and improve plant health and
the abilities of crops to resist insect pests and diseases.
Soil- and water-conserving tillage.
· Animal production systems that emphasize disease prevention through
health maintenance, thereby reducing the need for antibiotics.
Genetic improvement of crops to resist insect pests and diseases and to
use nutrients more effectively.
Alternative systems are often diversified. Diversified systems, which tend
to be more stable and resilient, reduce financial risk and provide a hedge
against drought, pest infestation, or other natural factors limiting produc-
tion. Diversification can also reduce economic pressures from price in-
creases for pesticides, fertilizers, and other inputs; drops in commodity
prices; regulatory actions affecting the availability of certain products; and
pest resistance to pesticides.
Alternative farming practices can be compatible with small or large farms
and many different types of machinery. Differences in climate and soil
types, however, affect the costs and viability of alternative systems. Alter-
native practices must be carefully adapted to the biological and physical
conditions of the farm and region. For example, it is relatively easy for corn
and soybean farmers in the Midwest to reduce or eliminate routine insecti-
cide use, a goal much harder for fruit and vegetable growers in regions with
long production seasons, such as the hot and humid Southeast. Crop rota-
tion and mechanical tiDage can control weeds in certain crops, climates,
and soils, but herbicides may be the only economical way to control weeds
in others. Substituting manure or legume forages for chemical fertilizers
can significantly reduce fertilizer costs. However, a local livestock industry
is often necessary to make these practices economical.
FINDINGS
In assessing current conventional and alternative farming practices in U.S.
agriculture the committee
· Studied the potential influence of alternative farming practices on na-
tional economic, environmental, and public health goals;
· Identified and evaluated the factors, including government programs
and policies, that influence adoption of alternative farming practices;
and
Reviewed the state of scientific and economic knowledge of alternative
farming practices to determine what further research is needed.
Based on its study, the committee arrived at four major findings.
1. A small number of farmers in most sectors of U.S. agriculture currently
use alternative farming systems, although components of alternative sys-
tems are used more widely. Farmers successfully adopting these systems
generally derive significant sustained economic and environmental benefits.
OCR for page 6
6
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
Wider adoption of proven alternative systems would result in even greater
economic benefits to farmers and environmental gains for the nation.
2. A wide range of federal policies, including commodity programs, trade
policy, research and extension programs, food grading and cosmetic stan-
dards, pesticide regulation, water quality and supply policies, and tax pol-
icy, significantly influence farmers' choices of agricultural practices. As a
whole, federal policies work against environmentally benign practices and
the adoption of alternative agricultural systems, particularly those involving
crop rotations, certain soil conservation practices, reductions in pesticide
use, and increased use of biological and cultural means of pest control.
These policies have generally made a plentiful food supply a higher priority
than protection of the resource base.
3. A systems approach to research is essential to the progress of alterna-
tive agriculture. Agricultural researchers have made important contribu-
tions to many components of alternative as well as conventional agricultural
systems. These contributions include the development of high-yielding pest-
resistant cultivars, soil testing methods, conservation tiliage, other soil and
water conservation practices, and IPM programs. Little recent research,
however, has been directed toward many on-farm interactions integral to
alternative agriculture, such as the relationship among crop rotations, till-
age methods, pest control, and nutrient cycling. Farmers must understand
these interactions as they move toward alternative systems. As a result, the
scientific knowledge, technology, and management skills necessary for
widespread adoption of alternative agriculture are not widely available or
well defined. Because of differences among regions and crops, research
needs vary.
4. Innovative farmers have developed many alternative farming methods
and systems. These systems consist of a wide variety of integrated practices
and methods suited to the specific needs, limitations, resource bases, and
economic conditions of different farms. To make wider adoption possible,
however, farmers need to receive information and technical assistance in
developing new management skills.
Incentives for the Acloption of Alternatives
Major segments of U.S. agriculture entered a period of economic hardship
and stress in the early and mid-1980s. This period followed more than 30
years of growth in farm size and production following World War II. Export
sales after 1981 slumped well below the record levels of the late 1970s. This
was caused by the rising value of the dollar, a period of worldwide reces-
sion, high and rigid federal commodity program loan rates, and increases
in agricultural production and exports from developed and certain devel-
oping countries. As food surpluses grew in some regions of the world, the
industrializect nations promoted agricultural exports with a variety of sub-
sidies. Many U. S. farmers, particularly specialized producers of major
OCR for page 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7
export crops such as corn, soybeans, cotton, and wheat, suffered financial
hardship.
Some farmers, caught by the abrupt downward turn in commodity prices
and land values, were unable to pay debts. Many were forced to leave
farming. A substantial increase in federal price and income support pay-
ments beginning in 1983, coupled with stronger export demand, has helped
insulate row-crop and smaD-grain producers from further economic losses.
Nonetheless, tens of thousands of farms are still struggling, particularly
mid~e-sized family farms with little or no off-farm income.
Apart from economic hardship, other adverse effects of conventional ag-
riculture are being felt in some regions. Specialization and related produc-
tion practices, such as extensive synthetic chemical fertilizer and pesticide
use, are contributing to environmental and occupational health problems
as wed as potential public health problems. Insects, weeds, and pathogens
continue to develop resistance to some commonly used insecticides, herbi-
cides, and fungicides. Insects and pathogens also continue to overcome
inbred genetic resistance of plants. Nitrate, predominantly from fertilizers
and animal manures, and several widely used pesticides have been found
in surface water and groundwater, making agriculture the leading nonpoint
source of water pollution in many states. The decreasing genetic diversity
of many major U.S. crops and livestock species (most notably dairy cattle
and poultry) increases the potential for sudden widespread economic losses
from disease.
Evaluating Alternative Farming Methods anti Systems
A review of the literature led the committee to conduct a set of case
studies to further explore and illustrate the principles and practices of
alternative agriculture. Some farmers who have adopted alternative prac-
tices have been very successful, while others have tried and failed. Some
who have successfully adopted alternatives experienced setbacks during the
transition. Experience and research have led to a detailed understanding of
some alternative methods. But many others are not well understood. Con-
sequently, it is hard to predict where and how specific alternative practices
might be useful. Although sconce has accumulated a great base of knowl-
edge of potential benefit to alternative agriculture, research and extension
have not focused on integrating this knowledge into practical solutions to
farmers' problems.
It is difficult to estimate the economic impact of many alternative farming
practices, particularly those that influence several facets of the farm, such
as soil fertility and pest populations. The task of isolating the impact of a
new practice requires detailed knowledge of a farm's biological and agro-
nomic characteristics. Even more difficult is the task of predicting and
measuring the economic effects of the transition to alternative methods.
OCR for page 8
8
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
During the transition period, it is often unclear how well and how quickly
alternative practices will become effective.
The aggregate effects of alternative agriculture need to be evaluated in the
context of market forces and government policies that determine farm prof-
itability. In spite of obstacles, however, innovative farmers will continue to
broaden and refine alternative farming practices, with increasingly signifi-
cant benefits for agriculture, the economy, and the environment. With ap-
propriate changes in farm policy and expanded and redirected research and
extension efforts, the rate of progress in developing and adopting alterna-
tive systems could be markedly accelerated.
CONCLUSIONS
Alternative Farming Practices anc! Their Effectiveness
Farmers who adopt alternative farming systems often have productive
and profitable operations, even though these farms usually function
with relatively little help from commodity income and price support
programs or extension.
The committee's review of available literature and commissioned case
studies illustrates that alternative systems can be successful in regions with
different climatic, ecological, and economic conditions and on farms pro-
ducing a variety of crops and livestock. Further, a small number of farms
using alternative systems profitably produce most major commodities, usu-
ally at competitive prices, and often without participating in federal com-
modity price and income support programs. Some of these farms, however,
depend on higher prices for their products. Successful alternative farmers
often produce high per acre yields with significant reductions in costs per
unit of crop harvested. A wide range of alternative systems and techniques
deserves further support and investigation by agricultural and economic
researchers. With modest adjustments in a number of federal agricultural
policies many of these systems could become more widely adopted and
successful.
Alternative farming practices are not a weIZ-defined set of practices or
management techniques. Rather, they are a range of technological and
management options used on farms striving to reduce costs, protect
health and environmental quality, and enhance beneficial biological
interactions and natural processes.
Farmers adopting alternative practices strive for profitable and ecologi-
cally sound ways to use the particular physical, chemical, and biological
OCR for page 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
9
potentials of their farms' resources. To these ends, they make choices to
diversify their operations, make the fullest use of available on-farm re-
sources, protect themselves and their communities from the potential haz-
ards of agricultural chemicals, and reduce off-farm input expenses. Instead
of rejecting modern agricultural science, farmers adopting alternative sys-
tems rely on increased knowledge of pest management and plant nutrition,
improved genetic and biological potential of cultivars and livestock, and
better management techniques.
A fuller understanding of biological and ecological interactions, nutrient
cycles, and management systems geared toward sustaining and maximizing
on-farm resources is often prerequisite for a successful transition to an
alternative system. The transition can occur rapidly in some cases; however,
most farmers adopt alternative practices gradually as they learn to integrate
these practices into more profitable farm management systems.
WeZZ-managed alternative farming systems nearly always use less syn-
thetic chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and antibiotics per unit of produc-
tion than comparable conventional farms. Reduced use of these inputs
lowers production costs and lessens agriculture's potential for adverse
environmental and' health effects without necessarily decreasing and
in some cases increasing per acre crop yields and the productivity of
livestock management systems.
Farmers can reduce pesticide use on cash grains through rotations that
disrupt the reproductive cycle, habitat, and food supply of many crop insect
pests and diseases. By altering the timing and placement of nitrogen fertil-
izers, farmers can often reduce per acre application rates with little or no
sacrifice in crop yields. Further reductions are possible in regions where
leguminous forages and cover crops can be profitably grown in rotation
with corn, soybeans, and small grains. This usually requires the presence
of a local hay market. Fruit and vegetable growers can often dramatically
decrease pesticide use with an IPM program, particularly in dry or northern
regions. Subtherapeutic use of antibiotics can be reduced or eliminated
without sacrificing profit in most beef and swine production systems not
reliant on extreme confinement rearing. Significant reduction of antibiotic
use in poultry production is possible, but will be more difficult without
major changes in the management and housing systems commonly used in
intensive production.
Alternative farming practices typically require more information,
trained labor, time, and management skills per unit of production than
conventional farming.
Alternative farming is not easy. Grain farmers who add livestock to their
farms may find it more difficult to balance demands on their time during
certain peak work seasons. Labor needs, particularly for trained personnel,
OCR for page 10
10
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
typically increase on farms using alternative systems. Marketing plans take
more time to develop and implement. Alternative farming practices also
require more attention to unique farm conditions. Scouting for pests and
beneficial insects, using biological controls, adopting rotations, and spot
spraying insecticides or herbicides require more knowledge and manage-
ment than simply treating entire fields on a programmed schedule.
The development of optimum rotations or planting schedules for specific
climatic and soil conditions demands careful observation of crop response
and precise management. Preventive health care for livestock requires
greater knowledge of animal health and accurate diagnoses of health prob-
lems. Monitoring soil nutrient levels through soil and crop tissue testing is
a reliable way to estimate more precisely fertility needs and calibrate fertil-
izer applications. Such testing and analysis, however, require time, knowl-
edge, money, and, in many cases, specialized skills.
The Effect of Government Policy
Many federal policies discourage adoption of alternative practices and!
systems by economically penalizing those who adopt rotations, apply
certain soil conservation systems, or attempt to reduce pesticide appZi-
cations. Federal programs often tolerate and sometimes encourage un-
reaZisticaZZy high yield goals, inefficient fertilizer and pesticide use, and
unsustainable use of land and water. Many farmers in these programs
manage their farms to maximize present and future program benefits,
sometimes at the expense of environmental quality.
Commodity program rules have an enormous influence on agriculture.
Through provisions governing allowable uses of base acres, these programs
promote specialization in one or two crops, rather than more varied rota-
tions. Between 80 and 95 percent of all acreage producing corn, other feed
grains, wheat, cotton, and rice (or about 70 percent of the nation's crop-
land) are currently enrolled in federal commodity programs.
All acres enrolled in the federal commodity income and price support
programs are subject to specific crop program rules that determine eligibil-
ity. The most crucial and basic rule determines eligible base acres. A farm's
base acres are those eligible for program participation and benefits. They
are calculated as an average of acreage enrolled in a particular crop program
each year during the past 5 years. Thus, any practice that reduces acreage
counted as planted to a program crop will reduce the acreage eligible for
federal subsidies for the next 5 years. For example, if a farmer rotates ah of
his or her base acreage one year to a legume that will fix and supply
nitrogen and conserve soil, fewer acres will be eligible for program pay-
ments in subsequent years. In general, under this scenario, benefits would
be reduced 20 percent per year for the next 5 years. Payment reductions
could be even greater in subsequent years.
- Another rule, cross-compliance, passed in the Food Security Act of 1985,
OCR for page 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 1
has had a great influence on a farmer's choice of crops. Cross-compliance
stipulates that to receive any benefits from an established crop acreage base,
a farmer must not exceed his or her acreage base for any other program
crop. In general, cross-compliance discourages diversification into rotations
involving other program crops. For example, if a farm is enrobed in the corn
program and has no other program crop base acreage, the farm would lose
all corn program benefits that year if any other program crop were planted
on the farm. Farmers wishing to diversify into rotations with other program
crops must generally forfeit program payments from crops currently in the
program. If a farm had base acreage for two or more crops when cross-
compliance went into effect in 1986, it must meet two criteria to retain
eligibility for maximum program benefits: (1) the farm may not be planted
with any other program crops and (2) the farm must stay enrobed in both
programs each year. Oats are currently exempt from cross-compliance to
encourage production. And in 1989, farmers have the option of planting 10
to 25 percent of feedgrain base acres to soybeans with no reduction in
feedgrain base acres in subsequent years.
The government also sets per bushel target prices for program crops.
Farmers enrolled in the programs are paid the difference between the target
price and the crop-specific loan rate or market price, whichever difference
is less, in the form of a per bushed (per hundredweight for rice, per pound
for cotton) deficiency payment. This is paid in addition to what a farmer
receives on the market or for placing the crop under loan with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation. Of-
ten these deficiency payments are a substantial portion of gross farm in-
come. For example, in 1986 and 1987, corn deficiency payments were $1.~1
and $~.21 per bushel, while market prices averaged $1.92 and $~.82, respec-
tively. Wheat deficiency payments in 1986 and 1987 were $~.98 and $1.78
per bushel, while market prices averaged $2.40 and $2.60, respectively.
Farmers in these programs manage their land to maximize future eligibil-
ity for farm program benefits. They are often far more responsive to subtle
economic effects of the farm programs than to the biological and physical
constraints of their land. Two principal objectives of farmers participating
in the commodity programs are to sustain or expand eligible base acres and
to maximize yields on those acres, thus maximizing per acre payments.
These goals are usually achieved by growing the same crop or crops year
after year and striving for the highest possible yield on the greatest possible
acreage.
Shifts in international market demand driven by economic policy changes
in the United States, including devaluation of the doDar and changes in the
tax code and deficits, can also have significant, unintended effects on the
land. During the export boom of the 1970s and early 1980s, land previously
considered unsuitable for cultivation, primarily because of erosion, was
brought into cultivation. About 25 million acres of this land has been re-
cently icHed under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), but much
remains in production.
OCR for page 12
12
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
Fertilizers and pesticides are often applied at rates that cannot be
justified economically without consideration of present or future farm
program payments.
The committee identified two major forms of input inefficiency encour-
aged by federal commodity programs: (1) excess input use to achieve higher
yields and maximize government program payments and (2) use of inputs
to expand crop production onto marginal lands or to support the produc-
tion of crops in regions poorly suited to a particular crop.
Efficiency of input use, total variable costs, and per unit production costs
differ widely among growers and regions. The committee's review of se-
lected cost of production studies resulted in the following conclusions that
warrant further study to help improve farm profitability and reform farm
. · -
pollcles:
.
Within a given region for a specific crop, average production costs per
unit of output on the most efficient farms are typically 25 percent less,
and often more than 50 percent less, than average costs on less efficient
farms. There is a great range in the economic performance of seemingly
similar or neighboring farms.
Average production costs per unit of output also vary markedly among
regions, although not as dramatically as among individual farms.
High-income and low-cost farms are often larger. The causes and effects
of this, however, deserve study.
Certain variable production expenses- machinery, pesticides, fertilizers,
and interest (excluding land)—account disproportionately for differ-
ences in per unit production costs.
Federal grading standards, or standards adopted under federal market-
ing orders, often discourage alternative pest control practices for fruits
and vegetables by imposing cosmetic and insect-part criteria that have
little if any relation to nutritional quality. Meat and dairy grading
standards continue to provide economic incentives for high-fat content,
even though considerable evidence supports the relationship between
high consumption of fats and chronic diseases, particularly heart dis-
ease.
Most fruits and vegetables are marketed under orders that set specific
criteria for cosmetic damage and other quality criteria that rarely affect the
safety or nutritional value of the food. Commodity producer organizations
generally support these standards as a way of reducing market supply and
increasing price; food processors favor them as a quality control mechanism
and because they can offer a lower price for food that does not meet the
highest cosmetic standards. In many cases, pesticides are applied solely to
meet grading criteria. Although IPM methods permit successful mainte-
nance or even enhancement of crop yields, in many cases they are less
OCR for page 13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
13
effective than routine spraying for controlling cosmetic damage. Pesticides
applied solely to meet cosmetic or insect fragment standards increase pest
control costs to producers and may increase residues of pesticides in food
and hazards to agricultural workers. Repercussions from pesticide use may
become more serious as new pests encroach on major fruit- and vegetable-
producing regions, and as insects and plant diseases become resistant to
currently effective products.
Many animal feeding and management systems and technologies cur-
rently exist to reduce the fat content of meat and dairy products. These
practices also often help cut costs. Producers are unlikely to adopt them,
however, without changes in grading standards and higher prices for lower
fat products. Some progress is under way in this area, particularly in the
beef and pork industries, but further reform of the rules is needed.
Current federal pest*idle regulatory policy applies a stricter standard
to new pesticides and pest control technologies than to currently used
older pesticides approved before 1972. This policy exists in spite of the
fact that a small number of currently used pesticides appears to present
the vast majority of health and environmental risks associated with
pesticides. This policy inhibits the marketing of biologically based or
genetically engineered products and safer pesticidles that may enhance
opportunities for alternative agricultural production systems.
Federal pesticide regulatory procedures and standards are increasingly
expensive and time-consuming. Many scientific issues remain unresolved,
complicating decisions to allow new pesticides onto the market and remove
older pesticides from the market. Pesticide benefits assessments, for exam-
ple, are an extremely challenging area for research. Neither the EPA nor the
USDA has developed formal procedures to calculate the economic benefits
of pesticides under regulatory review. This often leads to uncertainty, con-
troversy, and delay in regulatory decisions on older pesticides. The benefits
assessments that are typically developed tend to overestimate the actual
value of pesticides under review for health and environmental effects, by
not fully accounting for IPM and nonchemical alternatives. This policy
helps to preserve market share for older compounds known to pose health
and environmental hazards. This in turn discourages the development and
adoption of biological, cultural, or other alternative pest control practices.
Current and pending regulations need to be improved to provide greater
opportunity for the development of naturally occurring pest control agents
and those that rely in some way on genetic engineering. Uncertainty over
the definition of a genetically altered organism has resulted in some confu-
sion in registration of nonpathogenic microflora that can help control pests
biologically. One possible outcome of this confusion is delay in efforts to
select and produce strains of naturally occurring bacteria for many pur-
poses, including more efficient fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by legumes
and control of plant pests.
OCR for page 14
14
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
The State of Research arc! Extension
The results and design of basic, discipline-oriented research programs
often are not sufficiently integrated into practical interdiscipZinary ef-
forts to understand agricuZturaZ systems and' solve some major agricul-
turaZ problems.
Many would agree that the United States has been slow to marshal certain
new scientific capabilities, such as biotechnology, to develop agricultural
products and technologies. This is largely due to declining support for
applied research and extension and difficulty in maintaining facilities and
incentives for multidisciplinary research. While the decline of the heavy
industry and manufacturing sectors is perhaps the most dramatic example
of the erosion of U.S. technological leadership, many fear that agriculture
will be added to the list in the early l990s.
U.S. agriculture has always taken pride in its ability to apply science and
technology in overcoming the everyday problems of farmers. Many states,
however, are losing by retirement and attrition the multidisciplinary agri-
cultural research and education experts capable of bridging the gap between
laboratory advances and practical progress on the farm. These individuals,
frequently cooperative extension system employees, have traditionally
played an important role in informing research scientists of the problems
faced by farmers and in integrating research advances into production pro-
grams on the farm.
Insufficient numbers of young scientists are pursuing careers in interdis-
ciplinary or systems research. This is in part because higher education, peer
review, the agricultural research systems, and their funding sources tend to
encourage narrow intradisciplinary research over interdisciplinary work. As
a result, agricultural scientists often lack the skills and insights to under-
stand fully on-farm problems or how farmers can most readily overcome
them. The lack of support for on-farm systems research is creating a serious
problem for the cooperative extension system. The cooperative extension
system's ability to carry out its traditional role has eroded substantially in
the last decade. This trend is likely to continue unless there are changes in
research and development, educational policies, and increased financial
support.
The committee is nonetheless encouraged by the growing interest in
alternative farming practices among research and extension personnel.
Without additions to existing programs and new research and educational
initiatives, however, the current system will not be able to provide farmers
the kind of information, managerial assistance, and new technologies
needed to support widespread adoption of alternative agricultural prac-
tices. An effective alternative agricultural research program will require the
participation of and improved communication among problem-solving and
systems-oriented researchers, innovative farmers, farm advisers, and a larger
cadre of extension specialists.
OCR for page 15
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Research and extension program funds to study, develop, and promote
alternative farming practices are inadequate. It is unrealistic to expect
more rapid progress in developing and transferring alternative practices
to farmers without increased funding.
15
A shortage of public funds in support of agricultural research has dis-
couraged work on alternative agriculture. With shrinking funds, publicly
supported research and extension services have not been able to provide
adequate regional or farm-specific information about alternative farming
practices. Increasing production efficiency through the use of off-farm in-
puts to achieve higher yields has been a dominant objective, in part because
private funds were available to support these efforts.
During the last two decades, research support has increased for biological
research, especially in molecular biology. This work has made possible ad-
vances in the understanding of plants and animals at the subcellular level.
During the same period, however, government support for field and applied
research and extension in farming systems has not kept pace with the need,
or even with inflation. This applied research and extension is vital to im-
proving agricultural practices and dealing with agriculture's adverse envi-
ronmental effects.
State support for research, which tends to emphasize applied research
adapted to local crops and field conditions, is stable, at best, in many states.
Land-grant colleges, which receive much of their support from the states,
have had to find other sources of funds (including commodity organiza-
tions and agribusiness firms) to support adaptive field research. Despite
some success in securing private industry funding in support of some
applied research on specific products, private funds are rarely provided to
support the multidisciplinary research needed to advance alternative agri-
culture.
The committee believes that farming systems research promises signifi-
cant short- and long-term returns. inadequate funding, however, has post-
poned work in several areas, including the development of monitoring
processes and analytical tools, biological control methods, cover crops, al-
ternative animal care systems, rotations, plant health and nutrition, and
many others. Without increased funding and a change in the intradisciplin-
ary orientation in the tenure and promotion systems of major research
universities, farming systems research and extension will remain limited,
and progress toward alternatives will be much slower than otherwise pos-
sible.
There is inadequate scientific knowledge of economic, environmental,
and social costs and thresholds for pest damage, soil erosion, water
contamination, and other environmental consequences of agricultural
practices. Such knowledge is needed to inform farm managers of the
tradeoffs between on-farm practices and off-farm consequences.
OCR for page 16
16
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
Farmers are told too little about the ecological, biological, and economic
relationships associated with the use of agricultural chemicals. Farmers
generally follow the guidelines offered by the input manufacturers, but
these typically do not explain alternatives or the many conditions that may
reduce the need for a pesticide or a fertilizer. Farmers receive little guidance
in evaluating the economics of input use with respect to shifts in the market
price for a commod*y or those inputs. Eradicating as many pests as possi-
ble, for example, is rarely the most economical option and often ignores the
long-range impact of pesticides on the environment. When fertilizer costs
are low, higher per acre nitrogen fertilizer applications may seem like a
prudent investment. Applications in excess of need, however, are not com-
pletely used by crops and can aggravate water qual*y problems.
Many agricultural practices have an off-farm impact on society and the
environment. Common agricultural practices have clegraded surface water
quality, and, to a lesser degree, groundwater quality in most major farming
regions. In recent years, state and federal agencies have recognized that off-
farm costs of certain agricultural practices must be reduced, especially the
costs associated with some pesticides, tiDage methods, and excessively high
rates of manure and nitrogen fertilizer application. But methods and models
for measuring the costs and benefits of conventional and alternative farming
practices are simplistic. Moreover, many policy goals, such as conserving
soil and increasing exports, are often at odds. Farmers need guidance and
management tools to balance stewardship and production objectives. To
help farmers make these choices, reliable cost-benefit comparisons between
conventional and alternative systems are needed. Developing improved
information and techniques for calculating on- and off-farm costs, benefits,
and tradeoffs inherent in different farming systems and technologies must
be a prior*y.
~ ~ .
Research at private and public institutions should give higher priority
to development and use of biological and genetic resources to reduce the
use of chemicals, particularly those that threaten human health and
the environment.
Genetic research has greatly increased the productivity of plants and
animals in agriculture. Conventional plant breeding research such as hy-
bridization has produced many crop cultivars that are naturally resistant to
various diseases and insects. Genetic engineering techniques such as gene
transfer mediated by bacteria and viruses and direct transfer methods prom-
ise further improvements.
Financial incentives exist for the development of crop cultivars that pro-
duce higher yields. But there is less incentive and more risk for private
industry to produce cultivars designed to reduce input use and make vari-
ous alternative farming practices more feasible and profitable. Thus, the
federal government must increase its support for this type of research.
Examples of genetically engineered products that could reduce the need
OCR for page 17
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
17
for purchased inputs include legumes and bacteria that more effectively fix
nitrogen, diagnostic tools and preventative measures for major infectious
animal diseases, crop cultivars with genetic resistance to insects and other
pests, and enhancement of the allelopathic capability of crops to suppress
weeds. In these areas, genetic research could greatly reduce pesticide use,
increase the profitability of legumes and cover crops in crop rotations, and
lessen chemical levels in the food supply and the environment. While it is
too early to tell how biotechnology wiD influence agriculture, the committee
believes that biotechnology has much to offer farmers looking to adopt
alternative production practices.
Greater support for research on biological controls and improved plant
nutrition is also needed. Research on and implementation of biological
control lags far behind total support for other pest control methods, even
though several important pests remain difficult or costly to control by cur-
rent methods. Better understanding of the role of plant nutrition and health
in resisting pests, utilizing available soil nutrients, and improving yields
could be of great benefit to farmers. Greater public support is needed,
however, to support research designed specifically to achieve these goals
and reduce input costs and the environmental consequences of current
practices.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Farm and Environmental Policy
A variety of farm programs and policies have had a profound, continuing
influence on U.S. agriculture. Over the years, policies have had intended
and unintended effects. One important unintended effect is the variety of
financial penalties that farmers must overcome when adopting alternative
and resource-conserving production practices. These include the potential
loss of farm program subsidies, the inability of publicly supported research
institutions to provide information on alternative farming systems, and the
way current policies tolerate external environmental and public health costs
associated with contemporary production practices. Many changes in com-
modity and regulatory policies win be required to neutralize their bias
against the adoption of alternative farming systems.
Federal commodity programs must be restructured to help farmers
realize the full benefits of the productivity gains possible through many
alternative practices. These practices include wider adoption of rota-
tions with legumes and nonieguminous crops, the continued use of
improved cuZtivars, IPM and biological pest control, disease-resistant
livestock, improved farm machinery, [ower-cost management strategies
that use fewer off-farm and synthetic chemical inputs, and a host of
alternative technologies and management systems.
A number of government policies and programs have strongly encour-
OCR for page 18
18
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
aged farmers to specialize and deterred them from adopting diversified
farming practices. This is particularly true for farmers growing major com-
modities covered by price support programs. In many regions, the need to
retain eligibility for future government program payments has become more
important than the inherent efficiency or immediate profitability of a pro-
duction system in the absence of government program payments.
The committee recommends that a primary goal of commodity program
reform be the removal of the existing disincentives to alternative farming
practices. This step would ensure that farmers who employ crop rotations
and recommended resource conservation practices are not deprived of farm
income support. For the Congress, this means that
.
Existing commodity programs, if retained, should be revised to elimi-
nate penalties for farmers adopting rotations. These revisions should
allow more flexibility in substituting or adjusting base acreage allot-
ments to accommodate crop rotations, acceptance of forage crops in
rotations as satisfying set-aside requirements, and harvesting or grazing
of forage crops grown during such rotations;
· Mandatory production controls, if enacted, should not require land
retirement for participation because this discourages crop rotations.
Farmers should be free to decide how to produce the allotted level of
output over a 2- to 5-year period; and
Decoupling of income support from crop production, if enacted, should
ensure that aD farming systems and rotations are treated equitably.
Natural Resource Management
Despite five decades of federally supported soil conservation programs,
soil erosion and water quality deterioration continue. Agricultural and con-
servation policies have not consistently supported the stewardship of natu-
ral resources. This inconsistency among policies should be changed. The
committee recommends that
Provisions in the Food Security Act of 1985 designed to protect erodible
lands and wetlands must be fully and fairly implemented.
Future farm programs should offer no new incentives to manage these
and other fragile lands in a way that impairs environmental quality.
Surface water and groundwater quality monitoring must be more sys-
tematic and coupled with educational and regulatory policies that pre-
vent future water contamination.
Cost-effective water quality protection provisions must be incorporated
into existing conservation and commodity programs.
Regulations that require farmers to maintain soil and water conserva-
OCR for page 19
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
lion practices and structures instaZZed with government technical or
financial assistance must be enforced.
Adjustments in regional cropping patterns must be facilitated when
such changes are necessary in order to make progress toward profitable
and environmentaZZy sustainable production systems.
Regulatory Change
19
Procedures for review and approval of the safety of existing and new
agricultural chemicals and other agents used in production agriculture must
be implemented to achieve more rapid progress toward safer working con-
ditions, improved environmental quality, and reduced chemical residues in
foods and water.
Existing policies permit pesticides with known risks to human health but
approved years ago under less stringent criteria to remain in use, while
new effective and safer substitutes are sometimes kept off the market by
the regulatory approval process. Regulating Pesticides in Food: The Delaney
Paradox, a report of the National Research Council published in 1987, pre-
sents detailed recommendations for a consistent policy for regulating die-
tary exposure to pesticides.
A set of guidelines for assessing the benefits of pesticides under regu-
latory review should be developed. This procedure must include a
definition of beneficiaries as well as an assessment of the costs and
benefits of other available pest control alternatives. Benefits of control
methods must be assessed as they accrue to growers, consumers, tax-
payers, the public health, and the environment. As a basic rule, the
benefits of any pest control method should be characterized as the
difference between its benefits and those of the next best alternative,
which may involve an alternative cropping system that requires lit tie
or no pesticide use. The dollar costs of the health and environmental
consequences of each pest control method should be weighed against its
benefits.
Publ* information efforts should explain to consumers the relationship
of appearance to food quality and safety. Alternate means of controlling
the supply and price of fruits and vegetables should be developed.
Cosmetic and grading standards should be revised to emphasize the
safety of food and Reemphasize appearance and other secondary criteria.
Federally approved grading standards and marketing orders for fruits and
vegetables usually allow few surface blemishes on fresh produce or ex-
tremely low levels of insect parts in processed food. Consequently, farmers
OCR for page 20
20
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
use more pesticides to meet these standards and guarantee receipt of a top
price. This increases worker exposure to pesticides and may result in in-
creased food residues. Cosmetic standards, however, often have no relation
to nutritional quality, flavor, or food safety. Furthermore, these standards
discourage alternative pest control practices that may not be as effective in
meeting their rigid criteria.
Research and Development
Exploring the interactions and integration of agricultural practices is vital
to the understanding and development of alternative farming systems. In-
vestigation must begin with on-farm studies that address relationships
among practices that supply nutrients, conserve soil and water, control
pests, and sustain livestock health and productivity.
Long-term monitoring of commercial farms using alternative methods
must be added to farm management record studies to evaluate the environ-
mental, agronomic, and economic effects and viability of specific alternative
farming systems. Farming systems research must also take into account the
effects of policies and management decisions on resource conservation,
environmental integrity, farm worker health, food safety, and economic
sustainability.
The committee recommends the following strategy to encourage research
and development in support of alternative farming practices:
Develop a regional, multidisciplinary, Zong-term research, demonstra-
tion, and extension program such as that initiated by the USDA's Zow-
input sustainable agriculture (~ISA) initiative. This program should
focus on alternative farming practices and systems tailored for each
region's major types of crop and livestock operations.
The research program must include on-farm studies of farming systems,
with participating farmers cooperating with researchers and extension per-
sonne] in conducting field tests and demonstrations. The program should
establish at least six research and demonstration farm sites in each of the
four Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) administrative regions.
Within each region, grants from between $100,000 and $1 minion wouic3
support research at each she. State agricultural experiment stations would
manage or coordinate farm she research.
In addition, centers for sustainable or alternative agriculture should be
instituted in these four CSRS regions. These centers would establish a
network of physical, chemical, biological, and social scientists from govern-
ment, academia, and foundations. In cooperation with participating farms,
these centers would determine and oversee the research agenda of the
research and demonstration farms.
OCR for page 21
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Substantial annual funding at least $40 million—should be allocated
for alternative farming research. The USDA should distribute the
money through its competitive grants program to scientists from uni-
versities, private research institutions, foundations, and industry.
21
A new competitive grants program is essential to accelerate work in sup-
port of alternative agriculture. New funding should give priority to basic
and applied multidisciplinary research involving scientists at public and
private universities and private research institutions and foundations. The
specific research areas for an expanded competitive grants program should
include biological, genetic, and ecological research priorities and social sci-
ence research objectives focusing on the economic performance and conse-
quences of alternative systems. Priorities for the competitive grants pro-
gram are:
.
.
.
.
.
Nutrient cycling research to assess plant nutrient availability and in-
crease the efficiency of nutrient use; establishment of economically and
environmentally optimum levels and methods of fertilization with em-
phasis on leguminous crops; identification of points in the nutrient
cycle where nutrients are lost; exploration of how the efficiency of
nutrient uptake is affected by the source of nutrients, plant health, and
plant cultivars; and evaluation of the role of soil structure, filth, and
soil biota in plant nutrient use and availability.
Analysis of the effect of alternative tillage systems on weed and erosion
control, nutrient availability, fertilizer and pest control needs, cultiva-
tion costs, and compatibility with leguminous and nonleguminous cover
crops and specific soils.
Development of new pest management strategies that take advantage of
cultural practices; rotations; allelopathy; beneficial insect, parasite, and
pathogen species; and other biological and genetic pest control mecha-
nisms.
Analysis of the effect of crop rotations, including leguminous forages,
on plant vigor; disease, insect, and weed damage; allelopathy; soil
microorganisms; nutrient levels; and the effectiveness of strip intercrop-
ping, overseeding, and relay cropping.
Development of improved crop and livestock species' resistance to dis-
eases and pests through genetic engineering or classical breeding tech-
niques.
Development and modification of farm equipment to meet the needs of
alternative farming practices and development of better processing and
handling systems for plant residues, animal wastes, and other biomass
to recycle plant nutrients into the soil.
Research on the economics of alternative agricultural systems to deter-
mine their effect on net return to the farm family; per unit production
costs; the profitability of conventional versus alternative systems with
reduction or elimination of government support; the effect of alternative
OCR for page 22
22
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
agriculture on labor demand, supply, and rural development; and the
influence of widespread adoption of alternative systems on U.S. agri-
culture's competitiveness in international markets.
Development of computer software and systems to aid farmers in the
management and decision making needed to adopt alternative systems.
Economics and Markets
Data bases and economic research on the profitability of alternative farm-
ing systems are minimal. Meaningful research on the effect of these systems
on the international competitiveness of U.S. agriculture is not available. The
results of most studies to date are not relevant. They often compare the
performance of conventional production systems that differ primarily in the
level of inputs applied per acre. They do not compare conventional systems
with successful alternative systems. An objective assessment of the macro-
economic impacts of widespread adoption of highly productive alternative
farming practices has not been undertaken.
Recent economic studies of IPM demonstrate its profitability. However,
studies also highlight the fact that IPM requires continuous refinement as
new crop production methods are adopted or when new pests become
established. IPM systems can also change as old pests develop resistance to
pesticides, regulations are imposed, and prices paid and received by farm-
ers fluctuate. Studies of the economics of whole-farm systems, once com-
mon in farm management research and extension, are now rare, and the
necessary data bases are seriously neglected in all but a handful of states,
crops, and enterprise types.
Compared with conventional systems, alternative farming systems usu-
ally require new management skills along with greater reliance on skilled
and unskilled labor. How these demands will affect net income and rural
economies, however, is not known and is difficult to predict. The commit-
tee's case studies and review of available data illustrate that alternative
farming is often profitable, but the sample is too small and unrepresentative
to justify conclusions about the precise economic effects of widespread
adoption of specific practices or systems. The goal of sustaining a viable
operation during transition from conventional to alternative farming also
deserves more study.
The aggregate, health-related, and environmental costs and benefits to
society of alternative farming practices must be documented more fully.
More reliable estimates are needed of the long-term costs of soil erosion,
water pollution, human exposure to pesticides, certain animal health care
practices, and other off-farm consequences.
The committee recommends that
More resources should be allocated to collect and disseminate data on
yields, profits, labor requirements, human health risks, threats to
OCR for page 23
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
water quality, and other environmental hazards of conventional and
alternative farming practices within a given region. These data will
help policymakers and farmers make more informed choices.
Research should be uncertain to predict the long-term impacts of
various levels of adoption of alternative farming practices on the total
production and prices of various agricultural commodities; use and
prices of various farm inputs; international trade; employment, eco-
nomic development, and incomes of various categories of farmers; and
the overall structure of agriculture and viability of rural communities.
Research should be expanded on consumer attitudes toward paying
slightly higher prices for foods with lower or no pesticide residues, even
though such foods may not meet contemporary standards for appearance.
THE FUTURE OF ALTERNATIVE FARMING
23
Current scientific, technological, economic, social, and environmental
trends are causing farmers to reconsider their practices and look for alter-
natives. Many farmers are turning to farming practices that reduce pur-
chased off-farm input costs and the potential for environmental damage
through more intensive management and efficient use of natural and bio-
logical resources.
The success of some of these farmers indicates that these alternative
farming practices hold promise for many other farmers and potentially
significant benefits for the nation. How fast and how far this transformation
of U.S. agriculture wig go depends on economic opportunities and incen-
tives, which are shaped by farm policies, market forces, research priorities,
and the importance society places on achieving environmental goals.
Government policies that discourage the adoption of alternative practices
must be reformed. Information about alternative practices and new policies
to encourage their wider adoption must be disseminated effectively to farm-
ers. Experimentation must provide the basic physical, biological, and eco-
nomic understanding of agroecosystems on which alternative practices and
systems are built.
Ultimately, farmers wiB be the ones to decide. However, significant adop-
tion of alternative practices win not occur until economic incentives change.
This change win require fundamental reforms in agricultural programs and
policies. Regulatory policy may play a role, particularly in raising the cost
of conventional practices to reflect more closely their fun social and environ-
mental costs. On-farm research win have to be increased and directed to-
ward systems that achieve the multiple goals of profitability, continued
productivity, and environmental safety. Farmers win also have to acquire
the new knowledge and management skills necessary to implement suc-
cessful alternative practices. If these conditions are met, today's alternative
farming practices could become tomorrow's conventional practices, with
significant benefits for farmers, the economy, and the environment.
OCR for page 24
Representative terms from entire chapter:
farming practices
