EPA -8V-±-N- 10-10O
-------
r
IT DOES FOR GIS WHAT THE
TELESCOPE DID FOR ASTRONOMY.
SPANS™ 5. It opens up new worlds and delivers the power to
understand them like no other GIS in existence. • It gives you
the tools to do in-depth analysis of geographic data, and full
spatial modeling with the click of a mouse. Overlaying dozens
of layers of information at one time for integration and analysis.
• That's enough power to reshape the entire face of GIS and
the way it is used. • But it wasn't enough to keep us from going
much further. Now with a fully topological data structure,
SPANS 5 allows you to analyze virtually anything you can see
on the screen. And much more. With linear network analysis.
Complete integration of vector, raster and quadtree data. An
intuitive user interface. Two new operating systems, OS/2™
and AJX™ And superb output resolution. • All of which could
explain why it's the GIS that IBM® markets on OS/2. • If you
are exploring new worlds and need better vision, call us today.
We'll bring them into focus for you.
TYD./VO
Thinking spatially
1655 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 320
Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A. 22209
Telephone: (703) 522-0773
1600 Carling Avenue, Suite 310
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Z 8R7
Telephone: (613) 722-7472
XIOS House, 219 Bath Road
Slough, Berkshire, England SL14AS
Telephone: 0753-512320
{ba if H=1
IBM* is a registered trademark of International Business Machines Corporation. OS/2™ and AIX™ are trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation.
-------
45.29
58.70
58.83
58.90
58.98
59.26
59.46
59.81
••• •,' -; ,
77.01
78.65
80.06
85.05
90.50
ioo.oo
, :SPANS r sieiteiwaiysis.sysiom
iW.itl",aysp4t*WE5STo;p.oPUHsriONt:W!naos*
^^^
-------
January-February 1990
Volume 45, Number 1
Features
8
Viewpoint: The
changing policy
environment for the
1990 farm bill
Don Paarlberg contends
farmers must learn to play a
new game in the
agricultural policy arena
Mainstreaming low-
input agriculture
Neill Schaller looks at the
means and ends of
achieving sustainability in
the use of agricultural
resources
13
Low-input, sustainable
agriculture: Myth or
method?
Charles W. Stenholm and
Daniel B. Waggoner
suggest that the challenge
in the 1990s will be to strike
a reasonable balance
between competing
interests and goals in
sustainable agriculture
18
Agriculture's search for
sustainability and
profitability
John E. Ikerd discusses the
tradeoffs between
environmental stewardship
and a productive,
competitive agricultural
industry
24
Policy proposals to
foster sustainable
agriculture
Chuck Hassebrook and Ron
Kroese examine
opportunities for the 1990
farm bill to foster
development of sustainable
farming systems
28
Social traps and
incentives: Implications
for low-input,
sustainable agriculture
Jeffery R. Williams suggests
that sustainable farming
systems could be
encouraged with incentives
that break current social
traps
31
Sustainable agriculture:
Perspectives from
industry
Five representatives of the
agricultural chemical
industry share their
corporate views on the
concept of sustainability
34
Sorting out the
environmental benefits
of alternative
agriculture
Pierre Crosson and Janet
Ekey Ostrov analyze the
economic and
environmental benefits of
sustainable farming
practices
42
Low-input agriculture
and soil conservation
Klaus W. Flach says the
objectives of sustainable
agriculture and soil
conservation can be
compatible and
complementary
45
Farm price distortions,
chemical use, and the
environment
Clayton W. Ogg looks at
farm commodity program
options that could benefit
both farmers and the
environment
48
Low-input agriculture
reduces nonpoint-
source pollution
Anne C. Weinberg outlines
how state nonpoint-source
management programs can
promote use of low-input
agricultural practices
51
Research approaches
for ecological
sustainability
Richard Lowrance says
research on alternative
farming systems, including
chemical management,
should aid the search for
ecological sustainability
55
Specificity: The context
of research for
sustainability
D. T. Walters, D. A.
Mortensen, C. A. Francis,
R. W. Elmore and J. W.
King suggest that
agricultural operators today
require farm- and field-
specific information to
manage chemical inputs
58
Research needs for
sustainable agriculture
James J. Vorst reports on a
series of meetings at which
farmers and university
researchers examined the
direction that sustainable
agricultural research should
take |
61
LISA: Some early
results
J. Patrick Madden and Paul
F. O'Connell review
progress in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's
new low-input, sustainable
agriculture program
65
Practical applications of
low-input agriculture in
the Midwest
Charles A. Francis
summarizes strategies
farmers in the Midwest are
implementing to sustain
productivity and profitability
while protecting the
environment
68
Crop rotations:
Sustainable and
profitable
Roger L. Higgs, Arthur E.
Peterson, and William H.
Paulson take a new look at
the time-tested benefits of
crop rotation
71
Low-input farming
systems under
conservation
compliance
Dana L. Hoag and Kevin
E. Jack examine how the
new conservation
compliance provisions can
affect adoption of
sustainable farming systems
75
Sustainability of
dryland cropping in the
Palouse: An historical
view
Michael D. Jennings, Baird
C. Miller, David F. Bezdicek,
and David Granatstein
discuss sustainability in one
of the nation's most fragile
agricultural regions
81
Perennial grain: New
use for intermediate
wheatgrass
Peggy Wagoner outlines
research at the Rodale
Research Center on
developing wheatgrass as
a perennial grain crop
-------
^^ Journal of Soil & Water • •
Conservation
To advance the science and art of good land and water use worldwide
83
Sustainable agriculture
at work
Carey L. Draeger tells how
a new Michigan program is
helping farmers and forest
producers conserve energy
and natural resources
86
Commodity programs
and sustainable cash
grain farming
Bruce E. Lyman, Richard A.
Levins, Michael A. Schmitt,
and William F. Lazarus
analyze the common
dile,mmas that cash grain
farmers face in adopting
sustainable farming
methods
Commentary
89
Sustainable agriculture:
Who will lead?
Fee Busby says that
solutions to today's
agricultural problems
require that people have the
freedom to think and act on
their thoughts to solve local
problems
91
An open letter to the
agricultural community
on defining
sustainability
Rick Williams contends that
sustainability cannot be
defined only in measurable
parameters, but involves
diversity of involvement,
thought, and action
93
The flexibility of
sustainable agriculture
Wilson Scaling suggests
that practical resource
management offers
producers the flexibility to
reduce costs, meet consumer
demands, increase profits,
and aid the environment
94
Agriculture's role in
protecting water quality
Susan Offutt says that
farmers ultimately will be
responsible for changing
production practices to
avoid contaminating ground-
water and surface water
96
Converting to pesticide-
free farming: Coping
with institutions
Jim Bender outlines
obstacles that farmers face
in eliminating use of
agricultural chemicals
98
Wildlife and fish and
sustainable agriculture
Ann Y. Robinson says low-
input, sustainable farming
practices offer the promise
of better wildlife habitat
Research reports
115
Nitrogen status of corn
after alfalfa in 29 Iowa
fields
N. M. EI-Hout and A. M.
Blackmer
117
Soil physical properties
after 100 years of
continuous cultivation
S. H. Anderson, C. J.
Gantzer, and J. R. Brown
121
Farming systems'
influences on soil
properties and crop
yields
D. H. Rickerl and J. D. Smolik
125
Tillage and clover cover
crop effects on grain
sorghum yield and
nitrogen uptake
R. G. Lemon, F. M. Hons,
and V. A. Saladino
128
Spatial dimensions of
farm input intensity: A
pilot study
Abram Kaplan and John
Steinhart
132
Factors affecting
farmers' use of
practices to reduce
commercial fertilizers
and pesticides
Paul Lasley, Michael Duffy,
Kevin Kettner, and Craig
Chase
137
Sustainable production
from the Rough Fescue
Prairie
Johan F. Dormaar and
Walter D. Willms
140
The potential for L ISA-
type nitrogen use
adjustments in
mainstream U.S.
agriculture
Jay Dee Atwood and S. R.
Johnson
144
Reducing field losses
of nitrogen: Is erosion
control enough?
Fritz M. Roka, Richard A.
Levins, Billy V. Lessley, and
William L. Magette
148
Simulated effects of
rapeseed production
alternatives on
pollution potential in
the Georgia Coastal
Plain
D. L. Thomas, M. C. Smith,
R. A. Leonard, and F.J.K.
daSilva
154
The economic impact
of conservation
compliance on northern
Missouri farms
Nyle C. Wollenhaupt and
Melvin G. Blase
Departments
The SWCS View
6
Pen points
100
In the news
108
Professional services &
classifieds
109
Upcoming
110
Books, etc.
Cover: Agricultural engineer
James L. Butler of Tifton,
Georgia, examines corn
planted in a Tifton 44
bermudagrass sod.
Agricultural Research Service
photo by Rob Flynn.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
(ISSN 0022-4561) is published six times a
year in January, March, May, July,
September, and November by the Soil
and Water Conservation Society, 7515
N.E. Ankeny Road, Ankeny, Iowa
50021-9764. Second class postage paid at
Ankeny, Iowa, and additional mailing
offices.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
7515 N.E. Ankeny Road, Ankeny, Iowa
50021-9764.
Copyright © 1990 by the Soil and Water
Conservation Society. SWCS assumes no
responsibility for statements and opinions
expressed by contributors.
Address all editorial and business
correspondence to SWCS, 7515 N.E.
Ankeny Road, Ankeny, Iowa 50021-9764;
telephone (515) 289-2331. Subscription is
by membership in SWCS or by
subscription. Membership dues are $44 a
year ($50 outside the U.S. and Canada);
subscriptions are $30 a year ($35 outside
the U.S. and Canada).
-------
SOIL
AND WATER
CONSERVATION
SOCIETY
THE SWCS VIEW
Sustainability's
promise
SUSTAINABILITY is a buzzword these
days. We talk of sustainable forests, sus-
tainable soils, sustainable agriculture,
sustainable development—sustainable this and
that. In reality, sustainability is not a new con-
cept. Conservation pioneers from George
Perkins Marsh to Gilford Pinchot and Aldo
Leopold alluded to the concept in their writ-
ings, as did the founders of SWCS when they
wrote in our mission statement that we would
exist "to emphasize the interdependence of
natural resources and thereby to educate peo-
ple so they can use and enjoy these resources
forever."
But sustainability remains a buzzword. The
question is how constructive a buzzword it
proves to be.
Much time and effort has been spent in the
agricultural conservation community over the
past two or three years arguing about seman-
tics. Which term better describes the concept
of sustainability in an agricultural context? Is
it simply "sustainable," or "low-input," or
"low-input sustainable"? Or perhaps "alter-
native," or "regenerative," even "organic"?
SWCS contributed to this semantic wran-
gling a year ago in planning its national con-
ference, "The Promise of Low-Input Agricul-
ture: A Search for Sustainability and Profit-
ability," that was held in Omaha, Nebraska.
Note thai we even tried to cover what we
thought were all of the important semantical
bases in the conference theme.
Far more important, however, was and is the
articulation of the concept of sustainable agri-
culture as a uv3}< of thinking, which it is, and
promoting the many techniques encompassed
by this way of thinking.
At last fall's Agricultural Outlook Confer-
ence in Washington, D.C., John Ikerd defined
"sustainable agriculture" as those farming sys-
tems that are capable of maintaining their pro-
ductivity and usefulness to society indefinite-
ly. Such systems, he said, must be resource-
conserving, socially supportive, commercial-
ly competitive, and environmentally sound.
Many speakers stress that there is no con-
flict between ecological sustainability and eco-
nomic sustainability, not in the long run or
even the short run, from "society's point of
view." The only potential conflict exists be-
tween individual farmers and society in the
short run.
The logical difficulty with accepting this
statement is that farmers are also "part of
society." Another point to remember is that a
shift from existing agricultural systems to new
ones is not risk-free.
In the United States, the consumer has come
to expect food that is plentiful, nutritious, and
free from contaminants and/or other ingre-
dients that may cause short- or long-duration
health hazards (including various forms of food
poisoning, etc.).
Agricultural systems that are profitable for
individual farmers may or may not be sustain-
able. Similarly, individual sustainable farming
systems may not be profitable in the short run.
This being the case, one would assume that
the adoption of more sustainable production
systems would require considerable in-depth
thought and research. There are, however, some
major considerations. First, some of the existing
crop, pasture, range, and forestry operations
are already on a sustainability path. Second, the
sheer size, magnitude, and complexity of today's
food production systems require consideration,
lest the proposed cures be worse than the pre-
sumed disease. Third, federal farm policy grad-
ually continues to be modified to encourage flex-
ibility and experimentation with both agronomic
practices and alternative crops.
We might refer to the adoption of these ap-
proaches to sustainability as the mainstreaming
of these practices in conventional agriculture, and
it is to this end that the SWCS conference in
Omaha a year ago and this issue of the JSWC
is dedicated. For the adoption of crop rotation,
integrated pest management, and the other com-
ponents of sustainable agricultural systems, how-
ever incremental, holds the promise of improved
soil erosion control, better waste quality protec-
tion, enhanced wildlife habitat, and a more ac-
ceptable quality of life generally for producers
and consumers alike, not to mention its positive,
long-run consequence for such an important mat-
ter as the continuation of life itself on this earth.
Richard Duesterhaus, President
SOILS
AND WATER
CONSERVATION
SOCIETY
The Soil and Water Conservation Society is
a multidisoiplinaty organization dedicated to
promoting the science and art of good land
and water use worldwide, with emphasis on
the conservation of soil, water, and related
natural resources, including all forms of
beneficial plant and animal life. To this end,
SWCS seeks through the Journal of Soil
and Water Ccnsenafon and other programs
to emphasize the interdependence of natural
resources and thereby to educate people so
that they can use and enjoy these
resources forever.
Editor
Max Schnepf
Managing Editor
James L. Sanders
Assistant Editor
Walter C. Clark
Research Report Editor
James F. Power
Production Assistant
Sylvia L. Powell
EDITORIAL BOARD
A. D. Latornell (ohm), Toronto, Ont. , .
David B. Baker, Tiffin, Ohio
Blair T. Bower, Arlington, Va.
Donald J. Brosz, Laramie, Wyo.
Donn G. DeCoursey, Fort Collins, Colo.
George Foster, St. Paul, Minn.
W. L. Hargrove, Griffin, Ga.
R. J. Hildreth, Oak Brook, III.
N. W. Hudson, Silsoe, England
Dennis Keeney, Ames, Iowa
Lawrence W. Libby, Gainesville, Fla.
William R. Oschwald, Champaign, III.
Dave Schertz, Washington, D.C.
Gerald E. Schuman, Cheyenne, Wyo.
Richard Shannon, Missoula, Mont.
Frederick Steiner, Tempe, Ariz.
B. A. Stewart, Bushland, Tex.
Ken Trott, Davis, Calif.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
President
Richard L. Duesterhaus, Vienna, Va.
Vice-president
Raymond N. Brown, Jr., Shelburne Vt.
Secretary-Treasurer
Ronald J. Hicks, Sherwood Park, Alta.
Regional Representatives
Raymond N. Brown, Shelburne, Vt.
R. Hugh Caldwell, Lexington, S.C.
Robert L. Blevins, Lexington, Ky,
Adrian Achtermann, Silver Lake, Ohio
William J. Brune, Des Moines, Iowa
Alice J. Jones, Lincoln, Nebr.
Donald Bartolina, Oklahoma City, Okla.
Jan Jinings, Boise, Idaho
Ronald J. Hicks, Sherwood Park, Alta.
Hugh J. Brown, Cambridge, Vt.
STAFF
Executive Vice-president
Verlon K. "Tony" Vrana
Administrative Assistant
Larry D. Davis
Program Assistant
Tim Kautza
Washington, D.C. Representative
Norm Berg
4 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
For flie care oi the world's land and water
New from SWCS
Sustainable Agricultural
Systems
Clive A. Edwards, Rattan Lai, Patrick
Madden, Robert H. Miller, and Gar
House, Editors
Depending less on chemical and
energy-based inputs, while
maintaining productivity and the
environment is the focus of this book.
International authors address policy
development, case-histories, pest
management, pollution control, and
the economic and environmental
aspects of sustainability.
Hardbound $40 (SWCS members, $36)
696 pages
New from SWCS
Implementing the Conservation
Title of the Food Security Act
of 1985
Ted L. Napier, Editor
This book offers a timely, in-depth
analysis of the economic, social, and
political realities of implementing the
Conservation Title, one of the broadest
and most complex pieces of
conservation and environmental
legislation in the past 50 years.
Hardbound $18 (SWCS members, $15)
363 pages
Now in its second printing
Soil Erosion Research Methods
Rattan Lai, Editor
Some of the world's foremost soil and
water researchers describe how to
conduct soil erosion research,
including use of field plots, sediment
yield measurements, rainfall simulators,
erodibility and erosivity, wind erosion,
and assessing vegetative cover.
Paper $16.00 (SWCS or ISSS members,
$14.00) 244 pages
Soil Erosion and Conservation
A review of worldwide land
degradation problems
S. A. El-Swaify, W. C. Moldenhauer,
and Andrew Lo, Editors
' 'I highly recommend this book....
[It] offers the reader quite a complete
overview of the world-wide soil
conservation effort in research and
policy."—Daniel T. Walters, Journal of
Agronomic Education.
Hardbound $35.00 (SWCS or WASWC
members, $30.00) 806 pages
Conserving Soil: Insights
from Socioeconomic Research
Stephen B. Lovejoy and
Ted L. Napier, Editors
Why landowners and operators do or
do not adopt conservation is examined
in this review of socioeconomic
research. Chapters discuss insti-
tutional environments, infor-
mation transfer, and other
social barriers.
Hardbound $8.00 155 pages
Earth: The Stuff of Life
Firman E. Bear
Updated by H. Wayne Pritchard
and Wallace E. Akin
This revised edition is the only
lay-oriented introduction to soil
science. A plea for natural resource
conservation, itis also a discussion
of Earth—the life upon it, the granite
inside it, the air around it, and the rain
that falls on it.
Hardbound $21.95 318 pages
Conservation Farming
on Steep Lands
W. C. Moldenhauer and
N. W. Hudson, Editors
Sound, practical information on why
soil and water conservation projects
succeed or fail, and what approaches
and practices work best in managing
agricultural conservation in the Third
World.
Hardbound $25.00 (SWCS or WASWC
members, $22.00) 296 pages
Land Husbandry: A
Framework for Soil
and Water Conservation
A "hands-on" book on how the
fundamentals of soil and water
conservation can be integrated into
agricultural production systems on
steep lands. This manual has
applicable guidelines for soil and
water conservationists and agricultural
development project leaders, as well
as policymakers and crop producers.
Paper $12.00 (SWCS or WASWC members,
$10.00) 64 pages
Reclaiming Mine Soils
and Overburden in the Western
United States: Analytic
Parameters and Procedures
R. Dean Williams and
Gerald Schuman, Editors
A thorough and impartial review of the
analytical procedures used in mined-
land reclamation planning. The
volume provides a reference for
designing and interpreting soil and
overburden sampling programs and
an aid to regulatory authorities in
making environmental impact
assessments.
Hardbound $25.00 (SWCS members,
$22.50) 336 pages
A Manual for Training
Reclamation Inspectors
in the Fundamentals
of Hydrology
A desk reference on hydrology as it
relates to surface mining and reclama-
tion. The handbook describes indicators
of potential mining and reclamation
problems and offers ways to prevent
those problems.
Paper $6.00 56 pages
A Manual for Training
Reclamation Inspectors
in the Fundamentals of Soils
and Revegetation
This manual features overburden
characteristics, handling of plant-growth
media, vegetation establishment, post-
mining land uses, evaluation of revege-
tation success, and descriptions of more
than 250 plants useful in revegetation.
Paper $12.00 178 pages
Making Soil and Water
Conservation Work: Scientific
and Policy Perspectives
Daniel W. Halbach, C. Ford Runge,
and William E. Larson, Editors
The authors provide a framework for
establishing and implementing conser-
vation policy in the face of conflicting
political influences. Also included are
assessments of current federal conser-
vation efforts and how authorities are
shared with state governments.
Paper $10.00 155 pages
All orders postpaid via
surface mail; airmail extra.
VISA, MasterCard, and
Diner's Club accepted. Cash
or a purchase order must
accompany orders under
$10.00, or a 50-cent handling
charge will be added to the
invoice. Iowa residents please
add 4 percent tax.
SOIL!
AND WATER
CONSERVATION
SOCIETY
Soil and Water Conservation Society
7515 Northeast Ankeny Road
Ankeny, Iowa 50021-9764
(515) 289-2331 or 1-800-THE-SOIL
-------
PEN POINTS
Privileges, not rights
Jim Jacobs' article on the unexpected
consequences of the Food Security Act
[JSWC, September-October 1989, pp.
456-457] brought up some very good
points. However, while I agree with
most of the points, there is one that I
cannot accept.
He says that the Food Security Act
has an utter disregard for "individual
rights." What rights are being
disregarded? The public has not
decided "that a wetland owned by an
individual should not be disturbed,"
only that if they do disturb that wetland
that certain government monies will no
longer be available to them.
Farmers do not have an inherent
"right" to cost-share and price
supports, any more than the average
wage-earner has an inherent "right" to
their salary regardless of how they do
their job. In every aspect of life,
Americans have become enamored with
declaring their "rights." Most of those
rights do not exist. There are privileges
that we must earn, but few rights. Let's
stop talking about our rights, and think
a liule more about our duties.
Annora Equall
Havre, Montana
On chemical dependence
American agriculture, like our
society, is chemically dependent. The
removal of chemical pesticides and
synthetic fertilizers from food
production would cause the whole
system to crumble. Our dependence is
nearly total. Though it's considered
impolite to point out the chemical
dependence of friends or family to
booze or pills, addiction means the
same thing whether it's applied to a
drug user, our soils, or society.
We have misused our soils, mining
our fertility, compacting structure,
gassing microbes, and allowing tons to
wash away from our hillside fields.
This once great resource, intended to
last for generations, is becoming
exhausted. Thoughtlessly, we have
taken too much out and put little back.
By whatever measure, our once great
land is disappearing into streams and
suburbs—sick and sterilized. Because
the goal has been production at any
cost, we continue to pour on expensive
fertilizers to mask the soil's loss of
natural fertility. The quality of the
crop, its nutritional value to man and
animal, is actually decreasing.
Against competitive insects, fungi,
and weeds, we use poisons. Our
dependence on pesticides means we've
neglected other crucial biological and
ecological practices. Instead of breeding
varieties resistant to pests, we've
chosen to breed varieties resistant to
pesticides. When pests, insects, or
weeds become resistant to pesticides,
which is easy for them with their large
populations and breeding capacity, we
find another, more toxic material.
Instead of working with our farms and
the natural orders of diversity and
sustainability, we find ourselves at war
with Nature. Instead of following
natural rotations in the field, we plant
the same crop year after year, creating
perfect opportunities for increasing
levels of pests. We've created a system
that depends on chemicals: they enter
our environment and they enter us.
I don't know a farmer who enjoys
using chemicals, but faced with a
mortgage payment and a crop-
threatening pest, the choice is
inescapable, and you spray. Farmers
dance to several tunes, none of them
their own. Consumers demand cosmetic
perfection. Grocers demand constant
supply and longer shelf-life. Processors
demand undamaged crops. Bankers
demand payment on time. Farmers
have difficulties with these
contradictory demands. Agricultural
chemicals satisfy some of these
demands, but evidence seems clear that
they don't yield safer, healthier food.
Farmers know this: They're not being
paid enough to produce safe, healthy,
life-sustaining food, nor to be good
stewards of the Earth. Society asks
them to do this for free, for altruistic
reasons. Farmers know they can't stay
in business by resting their land,
rotating for pest control, and plowing
down green manures to build soil
structure and fertility. Only production
will keep them in business, and the
sheer demands of production are
destroying our land and our farmers;
they're locked into a system of
chemical and economic dependence
from which they find no escape.
Federal farm policies support
inadequate and destructive agricultural
practices and have created a gigantic
farm welfare system.
Ecological and regenerative solutions
are hard to come by when decisions are
made solely on the basis of production
per acre. We must ask ourselves, what
is the real cost of putting a meal on
America's table? The present system
has succeeded in making our food the
cheapest in the world for consumers,
but at what cost to farmers, their
communities, and land?
The time has come for Americans to
realize that the bottom line of our
cheap food system isn't on the
supermarket tape. We need to factor in
the decline of soil fertility, erosion and
related problems, food safety, polluted
groundwater, the health troubles of
farmers and farm workers, tax money
used in commodity payments, and the
destruction of our family farms and
rural communities.
As with other forms of chemical
dependence, the first requirement for a
cure is acknowledgement of our denial
of the problem. After acknowledgement
comes withdrawal. During withdrawal,
the farmer will adjust philosophically
while the fields adjust biologically.
Emotional and economic support will
be needed for three to five years. Help
will also be needed from research
institutions, cooperative extension
personnel, mortgage holders, and
consumers. Agriculture stands with a
number of major social and
environmental issues, such as waste
disposal, energy production and use,
global warming, and critical resource
exhaustion. It demands our attention,
and it's right on our dinner plate!
David Stern
Rose Valley Farm
Rose, New York
On farming sustainability
"The Search for Sustainable
Agroecosystems," [JSWC, March-April
1989, page 111] is a meaty article; I
underlined about every sentence and
further bracketed paragraphs for
emphasis.
Yet the article focused on crops...not
6 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
one word about livestock as part of
integrated, low-input, sustainable
agriculture. This may add complexity,
but it is my feeling that forage-grain
(cash crop)-livestock diversified
individual farm units, especially in the
corn, bean, and wheat regions, offer
the ultimate opportunity for sustainable,
highly profitable, low-input agriculture.
Forage-grain-livestock setups were
the norm prior to the launching of
"property line to property line
industrialized agriculture," abetted by a
secretary of agriculture who advocated
planting "fencerow to fencerow." The
fences have disappeared in favor of
tilling every last square inch.
What is needed for a completely
integrated and meaningful agricultural
ecosystem is the inclusion of legumes
and livestock in the farm setup.
Now, of course, the reaction of
triple-A farmers to such a notion is that
pasturing is inefficient and who wants
to invest in fencing and fuss with
livestock? I have seen the statement
that farmers are reaching the crossing
lines on the P&L charts where it will
not be profitable to raise corn, beans,
or wheat in spite of "industrial effi-
ciency." Beef operations are marginal,
in spite of larger and larger feedlots.
Forage-grain-livestock setups offer
the only complete scenario for profit-
able, sustainable agriculture. Once it is
examined, it will be seen that it is also
the lowest input method, simply by the
nature of its practices.
So, what has come along to make
this diversification so wonderful? Two
things: rotational pasturing and the
machine to make it viable.
Rotational pasturing is everything
from simply dividing the range in twain
to rapid rotation, high-density
pasturing. The crux of its management
is appropriate rest periods for a pasture
after "clipping" it by intense pasturing
in early stages of maturity when the
total digestible nutrient and protein
levels are the highest. There are many
nuances in the management of such a
setup, but they will fall into place.
What is the machine? The solution is
quick and easy mobile fencing! (I have
developed a machine that installs and
removes fence 40 to 80 rods an hour,
depending on complexity. It uses
conventional T-posts, barbed or smooth
wire and fasteners. It runs off the
hydraulics of a 35- to 40-HP tractor.)
Up to this point rotational pasturing
has been hampered by the labor
intensity of the system. Mechanizing it
will fling wide the gates to getting the
most out of pasture and crop rotations.
Truly quick and easy mobile fencing
will enable farm managers to take
ultimate advantage of all the benefits of
nature in an integrated farm system,
plus it will slash production costs as
well as save soil and water and stop
pollution. Including livestock will
complete the normal natural soil-plant-
animal biological cycle and will allow
the farmer to add value to his crops
that he himself will furnish at cost—not
retail or even wholesale, but at cost!
I am not advocating a complete move
to grass and livestock—rather a move
into a well-balanced and integrated
forage-cash crop-livestock setup. Being
diversified gives an operator a three- or
four-legged stool to sit on. Having the
facility to increase or decrease one or
the other or all modalities 5 to 10
percent without upsetting the apple cart
gives him the opportunity to adjust
midstream to weather, crop, and
market conditions.
The fencer will be the management
tool of the next evolution in the next
generation, which will start when a
farmer can see profits increased $100
to $300 per acre without a huge invest-
ment or major alteration of his present
setup. The fencer will allow him to
move into diversification stepwise and
gradually rather than going whole hog
into beef, grains, swine, sheep, horses,
or what have you.
I also envision a network of farm
management modules with field men in
soils, agronomy, animal husbandry,
engineering, and finance working as a
team with the farmer who makes the
final decisions to match his likes,
dislikes, resources, and talents. The
network will furnish information from
the experience of others and the stacks
in extension services, plus up-to-date
information on weather, crop, and
market conditions—the three biggest
gambles in farming.
There is a real possibility of a new
and brighter day when the farmer and
rancher will have more control over his
own destinies and operations. Then life
will be more challenging, interesting,
profitable, and fun!
Robert S. Hulburt
Chicago, Illinois
Best JSWC yet
The September-October JSWC just
came and is the best journal of all
time. It covers sustainable agriculture,
water quality, the new farm bill
achievements, the district and SCS
delivery system for services, etc. It is
outstanding and every author and
contributor merits a heartfelt thanks!
Larry Summers
Columbus, Ohio
New Mexico study classified
I wanted to point out an inaccuracy
in the November-December JSWC. The
New Mexico State University study
referred to in the "In the News"
section (page 588) was misinterpreted.
The statement that the study "says that
there is no justification for the private
harvesting by ranch owners of public
game animals and wildlife" is
inaccurate. The study reported, "We
find no compelling reason for the New
Mexico legislature to change the law so
as to encourage the commercial harvest
of free roaming native wildlife for
purposes of meat production." The
news story also stated the study
reported "that landowners should pay
user fees as do other hunters." I could
find no place in our study that user
fees were even mentioned and we
certainly made no recommendation
similar to what was stated.
New Mexico State University is on
the forefront of assisting landowners in
the implementation of wildlife
enterprises that are biologically,
legally, socially, and economically
sound. Our goal is to convince
landowners that wildlife on their land is
an asset not a liability. We feel that as
more landowners receive incentive to
manage for the improvement of habitat
and populations beneficiaries will be
the landowner; the public; and, most
importantly, the wildlife.
James E. Knight
New Mexico State University
January-February 1990 7
-------
Farm organizations, the agricultural
committees of Congress, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, and the land grant colleges
have lost control of the farm policy agenda.
VIEWPOINT
The changing policy
environment for the
1990 farm bill
MANY years ago, farming was different than other occu-
pations. It was more a way of life than a business.
Farmers were self-sufficient. They bought and sold
little. They took to market only what was in excess of their
family needs. Despite regional differences, there was a generally
recognizable rural culture, tradition, and lifestyle. Farmers were
readily distinguishable from other people by speech, dress, and
manner.
Farmers were considered unique, and worthily so. They were
given preference in the legislative forum. For example, because
farmers were special, they were given preferred access to land
and water. When general social legislation was enacted, we often
excluded agriculture because of its uniqueness. Consider some
of the major exclusions sought by and granted to agriculture:
>• Exemption from a whole set of laws related to hired labor:
child labor, working conditions, minimum wages, workmen's
compensation, collective-bargaining rights, unemployment
insurance.
>• Preference with respect to determining rates for transpor-
tation of farm products.
>• Exemption from laws regarding the restraint of trade
granted to farm cooperatives.
These exclusions have now come under fire. Agriculture is
being challenged on all of them, including price and income
supports available to farmers, but not to automobile manufac-
turers or hardware merchants.
Agriculture today is being deprived of its preferred position,
including its special claim on natural resources. Ecological ques-
tions are placed on the national agenda by environmentalists.
Land and water questions are raised by those who oppose the
long-held idea that farmers have first claim to the use of these
resources.
The conclusion is inescapable: farm organizations, the agri-
cultural committees of Congress, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the land grant colleges have lost control of
the farm policy agenda.
When we snap on the television set to watch a football game,
the first question we ask is, "Who's got the ball?" The agricul-
tural establishment had the ball in the farm policy arena for
100 years or more. But sometime during the 1970s and 1980s
there was a turnover—a turnover so gradual that the public and
even the principals have not yet fully recognized it. Nonetheless,
the initiative has changed hands.
From what kind of power base can farmers deal with this
situation? Their major asset is goodwill. Repeated surveys have
Don Riarlberg If professor emeritus of agricultural economics at Purdue
Unhvrslty, 1214 Hayes Street, West Lafayette, Indiana 47906.
shown that public opinion is favorably disposed toward farmers.
The historic position favoring agriculture continues but dwindles.
Whatever the political power base may be, we must in the
years ahead work out the assimilation of agriculture into the
mainstream of American life. As I see it, this is likely to be
the major factor affecting farm and food policy during the debate
on the 1990 farm bill. American agriculture is now part of an
interdependent world.
The environment is likely to be the most contentious sector
in the 1990 farm bill. Agreed-upon facts are few, and opinions
are strongly held. Quantification of environmental degradation
and the dangers of unwholesome food is extremely difficult,
and effective ways to cope with these dangers are at least as
difficult. But the public perception will govern. The objective
facts, whatever they may be, are likely to be overwhelmed.
The public has greater interest in an incremental improve-
ment in environmental practices than it has fear of a marginal
increase in the price of food. The old farm argument that en-
vironmental actions are likely to increase the cost of food will
not be persuasive.
The time is past when a farmer could feel sole responsibility
for management of the resources to which he held title. Farmers
are now a minority. With what strategy should they enter the
forthcoming debate on farm and food policy?
De-escalation, common ground, and tradeoffs are the ingre-
dients of good public policy. Each has its potential contribu-
tion to the development of sound farm and food policy during
the years ahead.
Issues might be de-escalated, for example, by searching out
available facts about food safety and environmental threats and
supporting leaders who respect the facts.
Areas of common ground could be found if sought out.
Farmers and nonfarmers are interested in each other's well-
being. As nonfarm people prosper, farmers have a better market
for their products. If farmers are sufficiently rewarded, they
will provide a bountiful supply of wholesome food.
Tradeoffs might be worked out. Better resource use, a con-
cession to the environmentalists, could help farmers pass legisla-
tion to reduce gyrations in farm income.
For a hundred years farmers had the policy initiative. They
called the signals, moved the ball, and put points on the
Scoreboard. But sometime during the past 15 years or so, there
was a turnover. Like it or not, farmers must now play defense.
There is in this game one thing worse than losing the ball: that
is to lose the ball and think you still have it.
Don Paarlberg
8 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
Mainstreaming
low-input agriculture
PEOPLE hear terms like tow-input, re-
duced-input, sustainable, organic,
biological, regenerative, and alter-
native agriculture. They wonder if these are
all the same thing. They don't know what
path the search for sustainability should
take, and how they will know when they get
there. Many look in vain for a single defini-
tion to guide them.
Meanwhile, farmers are trying different
approaches, unworried about how to define
them. Several who described their farming
operations at a U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture (USDA) hosted conference on low-input
agriculture ended their remarks by saying,
"I don't know if what I'm doing is low-input
sustainable agriculture or not."
There are reasons why we lack a single,
agreed-upon definition of what the search
is all about. First, low-input sustainable ag-
riculture is a way of thinking or a philoso-
phy. It is not a farming practice or a meth-
od—which is usually easier to define. In
fact, to try to force a specific definition of
low-input, sustainable agriculture would be
a mistake because it is a way of thinking.
Second, low-input sustainable agriculture
has evolved mainly as a reaction to the ad-
verse environmental and, more recently,
economic side effects of conventional agri-
culture. It constitutes a criticism of capi-
tal-intensive, chemical-intensive monocul-
tures. Low-input sustainable iarming could
be defined solely in terms of what it is a
reaction to; but then how do you define con-
ventional agriculture?
Means versus ends
One way to minimize possible confusion
about the search for a sustainable and prof-
itable agriculture is to think about it in terms
of means and ends. The ends are where we
want to go—call them goals or the purpose
of the search, if you prefer. The means are
ways of getting there—the practices and
specific methods of farming.
Realistically, we should visualize a con-
tinuum of means and ends. Some means can
and should be thought of as intermediate
ends, as well as means. You get a job (a
means) to earn money (another means, or
an intermediate end) to buy material things
and services (also a means or an interme-
| diate end) that enhance your well-being (a
f higher end).
Neill Schaller is director of the Low-Input Sus-
a tamable Agriculture Research and Education Pro-
gram with the Cooperative State Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
| 20250-2200. This article is adopted from Schaller's
g presentation at the conference, "The Promise of Low-
" Input Agriculture: A Search for Sustainability and
to Profitability."
January-February 1990 9
-------
Different people may see the means and
ends of the same activity quite differently.
Tfoke the means and ends of farming itself.
Some say you farm to live, others that you
live to farm. Money, a means for most peo-
ple, seems like an end in itself to others.
Let's try out the means-ends test on some
existing definitions. The 1980 USDA Report
and Recommendations on Organic Farming
includes a definition that is still cited as a
useful description of sustainable as well as
organic farming. It defines the latter as ".. .a
production system which avoids or largely
excludes the use of synthetically compound-
ed fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators,
and livestock feed additives. To the max-
imum extent feasible, organic farming sys-
tems rely upon crop rotations, crop residues,
animal manures, legumes, green manures,
off-farm organic wastes, mechanical cultiva-
tion, mineral-bearing rocks, and aspects of
biological pest control to maintain soil pro-
ductivity and tilth, to supply plant nutrients,
and to control insects, weeds, and other
pests" (10).
A more recent definition of sustainabili-
ty is found in the legislation establishing the
Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture
at Iowa State University. It says that sus-
tainability is "...the appropriate use of crop
and livestock systems and agricultural inputs
supporting those activities which maintain
economic and social viability while preserv-
ing the high productivity and quality of
Iowa's land" (4).
Finally, the American Society of Agron-
omy recently formulated this definition:
"Sustainable agriculture is one that, over the
long-term, enhances environmental quality
and the resource base on which agriculture
depends, provides for basic human food and
fiber needs, is economically viable, and en-
hances the quality of life for farmers and
society as a whole" (2).
Note the similarities and differences
among these definitions. Some talk almost
entirely about means, while others identify
a mixture of ends and means.
Because different people see the ends and
means through different eyes, we can under-
stand why confusion may arise. Consider
the term "low-input sustainable agriculture."
Though popular in Congress and elsewhere,
the name can cause problems. The implied
end is a sustainable agriculture, but what is
low-input? I see it as a means to that end
(a means, by the way, that may not be ap-
propriate for all farms in every region). But
not everyone thinks that way. Indeed, some
assume that proponents of low-input, sus-
tainable agriculture consider low-input farm-
ing, specifically low-chemical-input farm-
ing, as an end in itself. Behind that assump-
tion lies the unfortunate belief that low-
input, sustainable agriculture is just a new
name for the organic, antichemical move-
ment of some years ago.
Sustainability and/or profitability?
Are we talking about separate ends or just
one end? Ideally, we are talking about a
single end, agricultural sustainability, which
includes profitability along with other equal-
ly important criteria. It is a marriage of
ends, not unlike the one Bob Rodale chal-
lenged the Soil and Water Conservation
Society to help bring about four years ago
(6). He was talking then about a marriage
of conservation and production agriculture.
The problem, he said, was that conventional
agriculture treated efficiency, production,
and profit as the primary ends and conser-
vation as an add-on consideration. A mar-
riage was needed to give those ends equal
billing.
Whether the union of conservation and
production agriculture succeeded or failed
is an interesting question. The Conservation
Title of the 1985 Food Security Act could
be cited as evidence of success. But now I
think we are talking about an even bolder
union—a marriage of agricultural produc-
tivity and profitability, resource conserva-
tion and environmental protection, and the
enhancement of health and safety.
The sustainability of agriculture, I should
add, may not be the ultimate or highest end
on the means-ends ladder. For instance, it
can be thought of as a means to the sustain-
ability of society as a whole and the well-
being of all people. Sustainability is defi-
nitely an intermediate end to Bob Rodale,
who has given years of thought to the mean-
ing of these words. Speaking at a national
conference on "Natural Resources for the
21st Century" last year, he expressed the
hope that one day we will move beyond sus-
tainability to a still higher end, which he
calls regenerative agriculture (7).
Means to sustainable agriculture
Most discussions about the sustainability
of agriculture seem to concentrate on the
means to that end. We are more comfortable
talking about them than about ends. In fact,
many professionals are taught early that to
ensure their objectivity they should stick to
lower rungs on the means-ends ladder.
There they can safely judge the goodness or
badness of alternative means on purely tech-
nical grounds—how effective the means are
for achieving specified ends.
Relationships between different means to
sustainability can take several forms. They
can complement or supplement each other,
for example, when crop rotations, conser-
vation practices, and reduced use of insec-
ticides all pull in the same direction. Means
also can be in conflict. When conservation
tillage requires more herbicides, it conflicts
with the means of lower dependence on pur-
chased chemical inputs. Not all such con-
flicts can be avoided, but knowing when dif-
ferent means could conflict can help us
choose those that are least likely to work at
cross-purposes.
Conservation and LISA
The conservation community has played
a lead role in shaping sustainable agriculture
as a way of thinking. Conservation groups
have been instrumental in persuading Con-
gress to authorize and fund USDA's Low-
Input/Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) re-
search and education program, now in its
third year.
This should come as no surprise. The ties
between conservation and other dimensions
of sustainable agriculture are fundamental:
>• Conservationists are quite familiar
with the adverse impacts of conventional
agriculture on natural resources and the
environment.
^- The idea of conservation, like that of
low-input agriculture, implies that farming
is a partnership with nature. The mindset
that sees nature as something to be con-
quered simply is incompatible with sus-
tainability.
>• Conservationists, like others searching
for sustainability, do not equate it with pres-
ervation of resources. But they certainly
understand the difference between renewable
and nonrenewable resources.
>- Conservationists know that self-
interest, pursued to the extreme, does not
benefit society, as Adam Smith implied that
it might two centuries ago.
This perspective is evident throughout the
history of the conservation movement. As
one writer has put it, "Behind legislation
like the Soil Erosion Act was a national
groping for a new social and environment
ethic. In the place of the old emphasis on
private good, the new ethic began with de-
fining the collective good; and the good not
only of those now living but of those to
come. The program of soil conservation in-
itiated in 1935.. .was expected to be one of
the clearest expressions of this social ethic.
Henceforth, each generation was to leave the
earth in as good shape as it had found it,
or in even better shape..." (9).
The traditional ends and means of conser-
vation and those of agricultural sustainabil-
ity may not always be in harmony, for exam-
ple, increased use of herbicides accompany-
ing conservation tillage can conflict with
the idea of reducing purchased chemical
10 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
inputs. Looked at from the other direction,
conservationists might wonder if low-input
practices, such as minimizing the use of pur-
chased chemicals, could run counter to ef-
forts to curb soil erosion. Another conflict
between conservation and other dimensions
of sustainability could arise if conservation
reserve programs have the effect of restrict-
ing the acreage a farmer could otherwise in-
clude in a farm-wide rotation scheme.
Conservationists themselves may be un-
comfortable with low-input, sustainable ag-
riculture for a number of reasons. Some may
simply think that their long struggle to pro-
tect soil and water has suddenly become on-
ly a part of a much bigger idea now cham-
pioned by people outside the conservation
field. Others may be uneasy about the new
search for sustainability because they are
just not sure who is in it and why.
This skeptism, if it can be called that, is
suggested in a recent editorial by a conser-
vation leader who wrote: "The potential for
good management of soil and water re-
sources under low-input agricultural systems
is bright but not automatic. Soil and water
conservationists must keep a keen eye on the
development and popularity of low-input ag-
riculture to ensure that these basic resources,
so essential for food production, are not
degradated by new farming systems" (8).
Moreover, sustainable agriculture could
come across to some conservationists as an
embarrassing indictment of the people and
organizations of conventional agriculture,
the agriculture most conservationists have
grown up and worked with all their lives.
The benefits of that association to conser-
vationists apparently have more than over-
shadowed any ill feelings on their part be-
cause conservation traditionally has played
second fiddle to agricultural production.
People in fields other than conservation
who are joining the search for a sustainable
agriculture could be apprehensive about the
conservation connection, too. They may be-
lieve that conservationists have been far too
willing to let production agriculture be king-
of-the-mountain and to be satisfied with the
role of placing bandaids on injuries to land
and water caused by conventional farming.
These views and feelings are natural and,
I trust, a minor source of friction. But even
then they should not be left unattended. All
participants in the search for a sustainable
agriculture need to understand and respect
each other's perspectives. Strange bed-
fellows or not, they need each other.
The matter of mainstreaming
Four conditions in particular will surely
influence the extent to which low-input, sus-
tainable farming will be adopted:
Soil Conservation Service/Lynn Belts
>• The availability to farmers and others
of reliable facts and information about low-
input farming.
^- The removal of policy and other in-
stitutional barriers to farmers' adoption of
low-input practices.
>• The availability of financial or other
incentives to encourage adoption.
>• Regulations affecting the availability
and use of production inputs and fanners'
choice of practices.
Facts and information. For several years,
farmers have beeri doing much of their own
low-input research, disseminating it to other
farmers directly or through private organiza-
tions. The USDA-land grant research and
extension system has only just begun to re-
spond in a concerted way to farmers' needs
for information on low-input options. The
new USDA LISA program is giving that
need important visibility and support. But
the LISA program eventually must become
mainstream research and extension if the
nation's farmers are to have adequate access
to the facts and information they need.
Right now, the response of the traditional
research and extension system to LISA is
mixed. The new program is gaining atten-
tion among research and extension staff, but
there are persistent signs of uneasiness with
it. For example, all researchers do not
endorse the program's feature of involving
farmers directly in the selection and conduct
of LISA projects. Although they agree that
farmer inputs to research are critical, some
doubt the ability of nonscientists to play a
bigger role than that in the research process.
The ties between conservation and other
dimensions of sustainable agriculture are
fundamental.
Farmers are not the only people who need
more and better information about low-in-
put, sustainable agriculture. Policy analysts
and policymakers, along with interested
publics, must have reliable information to
make informed judgments about it. This
crucial need is barely recognized today. A
mixture of myths and realities now sur-
rounds the subject.
Some people, including many economists,
believe that low-input farming is inherently
unprofitable and, therefore, will never be
mainstream agriculture. Others disagree
completely. They add that the profitability
of low-input farming cannot be compared
with that of conventional agriculture using
only conventional economic yardsticks.
Even if it were less profitable in dollars and
cents, low-input farming would come out
ahead of conventional fanning when adding
in its nonmonetary benefits to the farmer and
to society.
Others see low-input agriculture as going
back to the way our grandparents farmed—
using labor instead of capital and raising
livestock to supply manure and to harvest
forage grown on the farm. As this reason-
ing goes, widespread adoption of low-input
farming would require an enormous increase
in the nation's livestock population. Even if
that were attainable, it would cause a terri-
ble problem of animal pollution, depress
market prices for livestock, and reduce total
January-February 1990 11
-------
agricultural production, thereby threatening
food shortages.
The counter argument is that low-input
farming is anything but a step backward, that
it incorporates many modern, sophisticated,
high-yielding practices, such as biological
pest control, for one. And fears of being
overrun by livestock are grossly overstated.
Profitable low-input forming is quite possi-
ble without any livestock at all on many
farms.
Another issue some raise is how many
farmers actually will be willing and able to
devote the additional management time and
skills that low-input agriculture is apt to
require. Clearly, we need facts and informa-
tion to intelligently sort out this and other
myths and issues. That means research and
education, much of it by economists and
other social scientists. So far, too few econo-
mists in particular have responded to this
need, perhaps because they do not see low-
input farming as a profitable and therefore
viable option.
Removal of barriers. Farmers often single
out commodity price and income support
programs for crops, such as feed grains,
wheat, and cotton, as penalizing those who
shift to low-input sustainable practices. The
main culprits are the base acreage and es-
tablished yield provisions of those programs,
which reward farmers for using as much of
their land as they can to grow program
crops. Government price supports above the
market prices for those crops amplify the
inducement to grow those crops and post-
pone a shift to rotations and other low-input
practices. Most observers expect that Con-
gress will soon consider ways to remove or
lessen these barriers.
And adopting low-input farming has other
possible institutional barriers. Among them
I would have to cite the mission, organiza-
tion, and culture of the USDA, land grant
universities, and other members of the ag-
ricultural community. The mixed response
of the community to the new LISA research
and education program is only one kind of
barrier. These institutions have played a cen-
tral role in developing conventional agricul-
ture. The idea of farming with fewer or no
purchased chemicals is alien to their way of
thinking. It is just not easy for them to now
view objectively a new way of thinking about
agriculture, especially one that emerged as
criticism of conventional farming.
Incentives. Fanners' access to facts and
information and the removal of existing bar-
riers to adoption of low-input agriculture
should come before incentives, and may sig-
nificantly lessen the need for them. I am not
sure what we are assuming about the means
and ends of incentives. If we are saying that
some compensation may be needed during
the transition period, that is one thing. If we
mean that low-input fanning, once adopted,
is still destined to remain less profitable than
conventional agriculture, I wonder. Certain-
ly, we need to look carefully at the rationale
for incentives as well as the kinds of incen-
tives that would make sense.
Regulations. I tend to think of regulations
as last resorts. At the same time, the possi-
bility of their being used can boost substan-
tially the willingness of farmers, as well as
input manufacturers and suppliers, to con-
sider low-input substitutes. The regulatory
approach also can include raising the cost
to fanners of inputs and practices that do not
enhance sustainability.
Taxing fertilizer sales, as is now done in
Iowa, is an example. Another would be to
deny farmers eligibility for benefits of cer-
tain government programs if they do not use
low-input practices (low-input cross-compli-
ance). These are not easy steps to take. The
experience so far with conservation
cross-compliance should help to shed light
on the feasibility of such an approach in the
case of low-input sustainable farming.
The challenge
To repeat the question: Will low-input sus-
tainable farming become mainstream agri-
culture? The biggest uncertainty in my mind
is whether profitable production will in fact
overshadow the other ends of sustainabili-
ty. The question is: Will the marriage of
profitable production, conservation, envi-
ronmental quality, and food safety and quali-
ty turn out to be only a courtship or, at best,
a brief marriage of convenience?
How much of the current interest in sus-
tainability traces mainly to the promise it has
offered for reducing costs? Will that interest
quickly fade if the prices of corn, wheat, and
other crops rise substantially or the govern-
ment supports them above market price
levels? "Yes" is often the answer heard. A
recent article in USDA's Farmline magazine
puts it this way: "If environmental issues are
to have higher priority and if greater use of
low-input production methods is to be
achieved,...some form of government in-
tervention might be necessary. But.. .regula-
tion and other forms of direct intervention
to change price signals could be ineffective
if agriculture experiences another boom in
export demand and commodity prices.
Under these conditions, it would be even
more difficult to achieve the goals of
maintaining profits and a competitive inter-
national market position, while also improv-
ing environmental conditions" (3).
I do not mean to say that profitability is
inherently at odds with the overall sus-
tainability of agriculture. William Reilly has
wisely reminded us that poor farmers can
also be poor environmentalists (5).
My concern is that beyond the point
where economic and environmental ends are
comfortable companions, we could see the
entrepreneurial, profit-making drive taking
over the reins. It is too deeply rooted in our
culture and the economic thinking that
shaped it too pervasive for many people to
now accept a profoundly new philosophy of
sustainability as just around the corner. The
point is Captured by these words in a recent
Farm Journal editorial on low-input, sus-
tainable agriculture: "The only sustainable
agriculture is profitable agriculture. Short
and sweet" (2).
Don't let these thoughts fuel pessimism.
See them instead as a challenge. The chal-
lenge is not to ignore the prevalence of self-
interest in our culture but, rather, in every
way possible to help increase the enlighten-
ment of that self-interest. Today's climate
could make that easier than it has been for
some time. We should be encouraged by
what President George Bush said in his in-
augural address—that our worth is not mea-
sured only by our wealth, that we need to
temper our pursuit of self-interest and work
toward a kinder and gentler society.
We should talk about how to capitalize on
this climate. We should think of ways to in-
crease consideration of sustainability as a
noble purpose, in our school systems, in 4-H
programs, and elsewhere among public and
private groups. We should increase our ef-
forts to reward conservation and low-input,
sustainable farming just as we have always
rewarded higher yields and output in agri-
culture.
Every person across this land has a stake
in the outcome. Sustainable agriculture is
not just an idea whose time has come. It is
an ideal we now have the privilege to ex-
amine and uphold for all to consider.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Ainsworth, Earl. 1989. LISA men have called
you. Farm J. (2): 1.
2. American Society of Agronomy. 1989.
Agronomy news. Madison, Wise.
3. Foulke, Judith. 1989. Low-input farming faces
profitability issue. Farmline (2): 13.
4. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.
1989. Descriptive brochure. Iowa State Univ.,
Ames.
5. Reilly, William E. 1987. Agriculture and con-
servation: A new alliance. J. Soil and Water
Cons. 42(1): 17.
6. Rodale, Robert. 1984. Alternative agriculture.
J. Soil and Water Cons. 39(5): 294-296.
7. Rodale, Robert. 1989. Conservation is dead. The
New Farm (2): 10-13.
8. Van Meter, Donald E. 1988. Conservation in
transition: The issues. J. Soil and Water Cons.
43(3): 210.
9. Worster, Donald. 1985. A sense of soil:
Agricultural conservation and American culture.
Agriculture and Human Values 2(4): 30.
10. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. Report
and recommendations on organic farming. U.S.
Gov. Printing Off., Washington, D.C. D
12 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
- = , '.f -F*
'™::-vS
"•-"--"'*• :lft/
Low-input, sustainable
agriculture: Myth or method?
By Charles W. Stenholm and Daniel B. Waggoner
FOR more than 50 years, federal re-
source conservation efforts have con-
centrated on two goals: reducing soil
erosion and developing water resources to
protect and enhance agricultural productivi-
ty. By the early 1980s, Congress had created
more than two dozen programs to address
these goals. Yet, there is a growing percep-
tion among certain parties that these pro-
grams are inadequate in addressing national
soil erosion and water quality problems (5).
Furthermore, U.S. agriculture, long the
symbol of a wholesome America, has
Charles W. Stenholm is a member of Congress
representing the 17th congressional district of Texas,
and chairman of the House Agriculture Subcommittee
on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, 1226 Longworth
Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. Daniel B. Wag-
goner is staff director, House Agriculture Sub-
committee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, 1301
Longworth Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. The
views expressed in this article are the authors' and
do not necessarily represent the official policy or
interpretations of the House Committee on
Agriculture.
become linked to a variety of environmen-
tal concerns (4). While agriculturally related
environmental issues have traditionally been
debated primarily within the House and
Senate agriculture committees, other con-
gressional panels with expanding environ-
mental agendas are increasingly addressing
issues affecting agriculture—from their own
perspectives (4).
Some background
The Agricultural Productivity Act, passed
as part of the 1985 Food Security Act, pro-
vided the authority to conduct research and
education programs in alternative farming
systems—often referred to as low-input, sus-
tainable agriculture (LISA). In December
1987, Congress appropriated $3.9 million to
begin work under this act. More specifical-
ly, the Agricultural Productivity Act man-
dates scientific investigation to (a) enhance
agricultural productivity, (b) maintain land
productivity, (c) reduce soil erosion and loss
of water and nutrients, and (d) conserve
energy and natural resources.
Most of the funded LISA projects are
long-term studies requiring several years of
development and application before scien-
tifically meaningful results can be obtained
(25). The goal of the program is to provide
an abundance of food and fiber in a way that
is harmless to humans and the environment
and sustainable for generations to come. The
projects are designed to help farmers sub-
stitute management, scientific information,
and on-farm resources for some of the pur-
chased inputs they currently depend upon
for their farming enterprises. In fiscal year
1989 some 56 projects were approved of 431
proposals received (25).
Recognizing the mounting concern about
resource conservation and its relationship
with broader environmental problems,
legislative responses could take many forms,
including amendments to existing conserva-
tion programs, new conservation provisions
in the 1990 farm bill coupled with commodi-
January-February 1990 13
-------
ly program participation requirements, or
separate legislation by the congressional
agriculture committees. Responses might be
limited to traditional soil and water conser-
vation efforts, or they could include provi-
sions addressing groundwater pollution,
water quality and supply problems, and the
potential for low-input, sustainable agricul-
ture (5, 19).
Agricultural and environmental interests
are interacting in a growing number of ways
and often with increasing intensity. Interac-
tions can be seen at all scales, from the
national level in policy debates before Con-
gress to the local level where farmers are
pressured increasingly to be aware of envi-
ronmental concerns associated with their
activities (28).
The agricultural community will face a
difficult task if it attempts to convince most
people that old programs, policies, and ap-
proaches are adequate in addressing envi-
ronmental problems of the 1990s. The per-
ception of an inadequate federal response
will certainly set the stage for a more vig-
orous state regulatory role and a more ag-
gressive posture by other congressional
committees concerned principally with en-
vironmental protection and public safety.
An interesting thematic tug-of-war is like-
ly to unfold during the 1990 farm bill debate
within the environmental-conservation com-
munity. Fewer people involved in produc-
tion agriculture means fewer people under-
stand production agriculture (22). There-
fore, those involved in production agricul-
ture need to educate environmentalists about
key linkages so that reforms adopted in 1990
will accomplish domestic environmental ob-
jectives, support farm income, and strength-
en the nation's posture within the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
UlkS.
Although few on Capitol Hill are ready
to speculate on what specific LISA-related
concepts may end up in the 1990 farm bill,
some emerging ideas include (a) permitted
planting of other crops on farm program
base acres in lieu of set-asides; (b) phasing-
in of a limited multiyear set-aside that would
allow low-impact uses, such as livestock
grazing; (c) a variation of the 0/92 program
that would allow more flexibility for using
set-aside acreage; and (d) deficiency pay-
ments decoupled from yields (19).
Many farm groups and farm state repre-
sentatives recognize the need to support
practices that encourage long-term farm pro-
ductivity and profitability. Certainly, in-
creased attention focused upon groundwater
quality protection, agrichemical residues,
and unmet soil conservation needs have
given the LISA concept momentum.
To be sure, Congress will be faced with
several interrelated questions as it debates
provisions in the next farm bill and in other
legislation that addresses these relationships.
Some of these questions center on whether
traditional soil conservation programs can
be expanded to accommodate broader envi-
ronmental concerns or whether new pro-
grams are needed. More specifically, the
question is whether the programs created in
the 1985 farm bill are the appropriate vehi-
cles for tackling a wider range of issues (5).
It is because of a progressive agriculture
that Americans enjoy the standard of living
and food abundance that are the envy of the
world (27). However, concerns about the en-
vironment are calling for changes in farm-
ing practices and input use. To make signifi-
cant changes in present practices, farmers
and ranchers must deal with several obsta-
cles, including tune limitations, knowledge
and information limitations, new technology
implementation, and the need to increase ef-
ficiency in crop production (1). Moreover,
reconciling generally accepted agricultural
practices with environmental and conserva-
tion goals has become one of the most sig-
nificant challenges confronting farmers and
ranchers. No one is more dependent upon
a healthy and safe environment than are
farmers and ranchers who make their home
and their living from the land (14).
Based on questions over the past several
years, we know that producers are searching
for ways to reduce production costs. Cur-
rently, there are serious and legitimate con-
cerns about the off-farm environmental
effects of agricultural practices as well as
effects on health and safety of farm families
(9). With this in mind, one of the most fre-
quent words used in agricultural and other
biological circles on the current Washington
scene is sustainability.
Defining sustainability
Agricultural sustainability can be defined
in different ways and sought through dif-
ferent means (6, 19). Sustainability is only
a target toward which one can aim, and agri-
cultural systems obviously operate within the
constraints of the larger society (3). While
low-input, sustainable agriculture is the cur-
rent buzzword in the nation's capital, the
term's precise meaning remains elusive.
Part of the current confusion about the
sustainable agriculture concept is that sev-
eral related ideas and terms about sustain-
able agriculture have also been used. Given
the limited understanding of what defines
true sustainability, it is no easy task at this
point to determine how to incorporate the
ideas of sustainability into congressional
policy efforts. And on the local scene, the
principal cause of the observed reluctance
of many fanners to adopt sustainable tech-
niques, even techniques that have been
demonstrated to be cost-competitive on a
per-acre basis, is the set of institutions (poli-
cies, laws, and property rules) that have
grown up around contemporary, conven-
tional systems (75, 79).
Does calling a system low-input guarantee
that it is sustainable? And if it is sustain-
able—that is, capable of enduring—is it nec-
essarily alternative—meaning it is different
from prevailing practices? Is an agricultural
system that allows for reduced inputs neces-
sarily ecological, that is, more like a natural
ecosystem? In much of the literature there
is an implicit assumption that when one
strives for any of these goals the others
somehow come along automatically. There
is little recognition that these goals are sub-
stantially distinct and independent, so that
each has to be achieved in its own right (75).
The term sustainability has agronomic, en-
vironmental, social, economic, and political
dimensions. It is not merely a set of best
management practices or simply a reduction
in the use of agrichemicals. It is site-specific,
management-intensive, and resource-con-
serving. It considers long-term as well as
short-term economics because sustainable is
readily defined as forever, that is, agricul-
tural environments that are designed to pro-
mote endless regeneration (13).
Information management the key
Many recent studies have shown that a key
obstacle to widesspread adoption of low-
input, sustainable principles and practices
is the lack of reliable information (76). An
important reason why such information is
inadequate is that there are few market in-
centives encouraging anyone to develop and
disseminate such information. Low-input
farming strategies are an example of what
economists call public goods. Unlike private
goods, such as agrichemical products and
related services, crop management strategies
are difficult or impossible to restrict or con-
trol as proprietary information. This creates
a problem of patentability that makes it dif-
ficult to profit directly from developing or
promoting low-input methods (7). Further-
more, even with all of the information for
a given system, a meaningful national low-
input, sustainable agriculture technical guide
may be improbable because of local factors
and constraints. Transitions from present
production to systems with lower inputs will
require change by evolution rather than
revolution if the changes are to be truly sus-
tainable. The set of strategies for a given
production unit is site-specific and changes
at a given site over time because of the ran-
dom dynamics of the natural environment
14 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
(J7). There are institutional obstacles to the
adoption of environmentally safe production
methods. An example is farm program base
acreage requirements that reduce producer
flexibility and encourage monoculture while
limiting crop rotations (19). Consequently,
the planting flexibility question needs to be
placed on top of the commodity program
agenda during deliberations surrounding the
1990 farm bill.
Coupled with this lack of basic informa-
tion and producer flexibility is a shortage
of research information that addresses the
technology needed to respond to problems
where they do exist. Economically viable
production practices that avoid or minimize
pollution from agriculture need to be devel-
oped. This is not an easy or short-term task.
Regrettably, we simply do not have a reliable
data base to help us understand the nature
and extent of the problem from a national
perspective (10, 19). However, simple reli-
ance on agrichemicals and related technol-
ogies is not a substitute for good steward-
ship. Long-term economic viability and en-
vironmental protection in agriculture de-
pends ultimately upon both expanded use of
better technology and improved education,
crop rotation, economic farm management,
and integrated pest control (19).
Production practices contained in the low-
input production philosophy, such as inte-
grated pest management (IPM) and best
management practices (BMPs), are positive
steps in the right direction. IPM allows
farmers to wisely use chemicals through ac-
curate insect identification and timely appli-
cation. However, many producers have been
slow to adopt IPM because it requires great-
er management time and skills. Nonetheless,
the Office of Technology Assessment esti-
mates that U.S. farmers could reduce pesti-
cide use by as much as 75 percent if IPM
programs were adopted widely (20). Avail-
able data indicates IPM programs have re-
duced pesticide use by 20 to 50 percent in
numerous cropping systems (19, 26). IPM
programs currently have impacts on more
than 30 million acres, resulting in estimated
annual net benefits of more than $500 mil-
lion (19, 26).
In addition, evidence indicates that farm-
ers who adopt BMPs are able to reduce ni-
trogen fertilizer application rates on corn by
as much as half with no reduction in yield
(7). BMPs themselves evolve over time,
changing to reflect new technical under-
standing of erosion and other environmental
problems; the recognition of new issues,
such as water quality and groundwater con-
tamination; and shifting economic situa-
tions.
As with any technology, however, there is
a cost. Multiple cropping and conservation
tillage both require more intensive manage-
ment than do conventional tillage and mono-
culture (24). Moreover, there is no free
lunch when it comes to maintaining soil sup-
plies of mineral nutrients, such as phospho-
rus and potassium. The nutrients removed
from the soil in harvested crops must be re-
placed or soil fertility will decline. It has
A BRIEF HISTORY OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
Conservation and low-input agriculture are
operating in the same ballpark. Both are
ideas for the protection and improvement of
agriculture. Both concepts also involve a set
of specific methods to make sure that agri-
culture is able to achieve long-term goals for
the protection of its resources, for its eco-
nomic success, and for human satisfaction.
Yet both are quite different ideas. Each has
its own history. Conservation as an idea and
method stems from the creative thinking and
the actions of Gifford Pinchot shortly after
the turn of the century. Everyone who is ac-
tive in the conservation movement should,
in my opinion, read Gifford Pinchot's auto-
biography to get a good sense of the history
of this important method.
The low-input, sustainable agricultural ap-
proach dates its history to another book pub-
lished about the same time—Franklin H.
King's Farmers of Forty Centuries. King
compared the low-input and sustainable ap-
proach of oriental agriculture with what he
perceived as the profligate set of methods
American farmers were using.
Briefly, King's message to the American
agricultural community was that farming sys-
tems have within themselves a large capac-
ity to regenerate, using internal resources.
Those are not King's exact words, but they
are more modern terms that express his cen-
tral idea. King was not against the use of ex-
ternal inputs, such as artificial fertilizers. But
he warned that an agriculture that was not
rooted firmly in frugality and the recycling
of fertilizer elements and organic materials
could not last. It would not be sustainable
over the long term in either economic, bio-
logical, or cultural terms.
Unfortunately, King died before he could
write the last chapter of his book, which he
meant to be a specific warning to the West
that sustainable practices would be vital to
farming's health in the future. But other peo-
ple were influenced profoundly by Farmers
of Forty Centuries.
Sir Albert Howard, the founding scientist
and philosopher of what we now call organic
farming, cites King's work in his book An
Agricultural Testament. My own life and
work has been oriented around the issues and
possibilities that King presented so eloquent-
ly in 1907. In fact, I am convinced that one
of the major reasons that low-input, sustain-
able agriculture is now perceived as an ef-
fective method to respond to the agricultural
problems of the 1980s is that the technique
is firmly rooted in the good work of several
generations of leaders.
Now, we are seeing a coming together of
conservation and low-input, sustainable agri-
cultural thinking. My message, in fact, is that
I see great potential for a marriage of the two
ideas. When I spoke a few years ago at the
annual meeting of the Soil and Water Con-
servation Society, I argued for a marriage of
conservation and agriculture itself—a com-
bination of what I saw as two separate ideas
into a set of regenerative agricultural sys-
tems. Some steps were taken in that direc-
tion. SWCS and the Rodale Institute cospon-
sored a meeting that came to be known as
the "marriage conference." It was one of the
first roundtables at which high officials of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the con-
servation community, and the regenerative
agriculture community sat down together to
talk about the future of cooperation. Many
initiatives that are now bearing fruit got their
start at that meeting.
In the last few short years, the low-input,
sustainable agricultural approach has gained
tremendously in stature, accomplishments,
and the number of adherents. There is now
a much greater body of evidence showing
not only that low-input, sustainable agricul-
ture works, but how it works and how it can
be applied in wider agricultural situations.
At the same time, I think there is a grow-
ing realization by leaders of the conserva-
tion community that steps need to be taken
to, in effect, reinvent what conservation is.
Originally, in Pinchot's vision, conservation
was a unified set of wise management meth-
ods—unified in the sense that it penetrated
to all aspects of the management system for
natural resources. I believe that in the later
years of the history of conservation it has
become more of a method to correct the
problems of agriculture rather than a total
partner in the whole equation. Farmers too
often look at conservation as a set of
methods that are "the right thing to do" to
correct erosion, pollution problems, and
other troubles caused by agriculture—if the
government helps pay for them. That way
of thinking has gradually led to a lack of en-
thusiasm with the central idea of conserva-
tion, which radiated so clearly from the
work of the early thinkers and activists, such
as Pinchot and Hugh Hammond Bennett.—
Robert Rodale, Rodale Institute, Emmaus,
Pennsylvania, speaking at "The Promise of
Low-Input Agriculture" conference.
January-February 1990 15
-------
been suggested that simply producing le-
gumes and spreading manures could achieve
crucial soil improvement objectives on poor
soils. However, the quantities of manure re-
quired would be difficult to economically
acquire, and it would be near impossible to
get useful legumes to grow without exten-
sive use of soil amendments.
Sound fertility management uses available
livestock manures and crop rotations wher-
ever practical, taking appropriate nutrient
credits for these materials, then using com-
mercial fertilizers to balance the crop needs
for realistic yield goals (22). In summary,
better farming means balancing ecologic,
social, and economic considerations for
short-run survival and long-run sustainabili-
ty. Better farming will require more research
and information that is relevant to a balanced
approach to farming (12).
We are approaching the tailor-making
stage in some areas of crop protection chem-
ical research. Compounds are being devel-
oped that are designed intricately to disrupt
plant and insect processes at sites within
these systems that will be unique to them.
Potential developments in biotechnology
may open windows of opportunity in crop
productivity and plant protection that are
difficult to conceive of today (9). Proper
education will play a critical role in deter-
mining how consumers react in the next
decade as producers begin to use these new
technologies (14).
A prosperous agriculture no longer im-
plies a prosperous rural community (6). The
rural social fabric must be strengthened if
the United States is to maintain rural com-
munities, which are the support base for
fanners and their families (5). Sustainability
is as important for rural communities as for
individual farmers. Sustainable economic
development for rural communities is based
on realization of the value inherent in geo-
graphically fixed resources in ways that con-
serve the nonrenewable resource base, pro-
tect the physical and social environment, and
provide an acceptable level of economic
return for those who work and live in the
community (12).
A new term proposed along with sus-
tainable agriculture is thought-intensive ag-
riculture. It means to think carefully about
all available strategics in the farm system that
can deal with the problem and create pro-
duction opportunities (11). Rural families
and communities need to examine their own
needs and goals and carefully search out an
approach that will help them to meet these
goals, consistent with the available resource
base (9). Thinking from this perspective
leads one to believe that we must balance
our economic needs, in terms of production
and profitability; our environmental needs,
in terms of resource conservation and pro-
tection; and our social needs, in terms of
rural community vitality and the well-being
of farm families (5). No single set of cur-
rently available systems and technologies
should claim to hold an exclusive key to the
ultimate, long-term goal of agricultural sus-
tainability. Merely labelling a particular pro-
duction method as sustainable does not
guarantee that it is, nor does the label mean
that some other approach, or future com-
bination of emerging technologies, cannot
contribute to the goal of sustainability (27).
Continuing global concerns
World population growth and competition
from foreign agricultural production will
continue to be major challenges for U.S.
formers (2,19). In 1985, the world's popula-
tion was about five billion. By the end of
this century, experts estimate that it will
reach six billion, an annual growth rate of
almost two percent. The general public, es-
pecially the urban part of it, does not under-
stand that if U.S. farmers used the agricul-
tural technology of the 1930s and 1940s to
produce the harvest of 1985 they would have
to convert 75 percent of the permanent pas-
turelands in the U.S. or 60 percent of Amer-
ican forests and woodland areas to cropland.
Thankfully, relative to other parts of the
world, U.S. consumers spend a very small
portion of their disposable income on food.
And this is accomplished with less than two
percent of the U.S. population working on
farms (79).
The productivity of modern agriculture is
the result of a remarkable fusion of science,
technology, and practice (25). The conven-
tional agriculture of today is not the conven-
tional agriculture of even five years ago.
Technology and science have moved forward
and created new opportunities and new
awarenesses (10). The long history of agro-
nomic research that forms the basis of to-
day's, progressive production practices is
scientifically sound and has withstood the
test of fluctuating economic conditions. This
record of technological accomplishment has
convinced many people that scientific re-
search and development, if properly nur-
tured and developed, can be counted on to
increase future productivity at least as rapid-
ly as in the past (6, 19).
Today's farmers are searching for re-
source-efficient, lower cost, and more prof-
itable production systems. Everyone in agri-
culture should share the broader concerns
of society for a clean and livable environ-
ment. There is also no doubt that new direc-
tions should be pursued to assist in the adap-
tation to future changes in resource availabil-
ity and societal awareness of environmen-
tal issues (9).
Environmental protection cannot take a
back seat to profit; farmers must be en-
couraged and allowed to manage an efficient
system that preserves the quality of their
drinking water while also preserving their
standard of living. Subsequently, a multi-
science approach—including interdiscipli-
nary team efforts, meaningful participation
of operating farmers, and involvement of
public and private organizations—is essen-
tial to the continued success of production
agriculture. To be economically sustainable,
agriculture must produce a marketable prod-
uct at a lower cost than the market is will-
ing to pay (11). Unfortunately, there is much
unknown about the relationship between
specific technologies and the actual sustain-
ability of an agricultural system. Until we
have a better understanding of this relation-
ship, it would seem premature to inflexibly
associate sustainable agriculture with any
one class of techniques (27).
We need to search for alternative ap-
proaches that are more broadly based, to
bring in more ideas and broaden the owner-
ship of the low-input, sustainable agriculture
research agenda. Working as a team, pro-
ducers, extension agents/specialists, and re-
searchers can identify priority areas where
more information is needed and together can
search for a range of alternative solutions
(9). Furthermore, greater diversity in both
our cror) and livestock systems often can lead
to improved economic stability for pro-
ducers. It seems we have only begun to tap
the rich pool of products that could be pro-
duced efficiently from agricultural species.
Because farmers sometimes feel they are
caught in a squeeze between weather and
markets, it can be psychologically helpful
to ensure that they have plenty of options
to choose from and different potential prof-
it sources (3). Technology—intelligently
conceived and carefully implemented, in-
cluding the measured and careful applica-
tion of agrichemicals and crop protection
techniques—represents the hope for the fu-
ture and, as such, should be a cornerstone
of food and agricultural policy for the com-
ing decades (21).
Sustainable agriculture is not so much a
new idea as a synthesis of ideas originating
from various sources, out of various motiva-
tions (1$). A new emphasis on sustainable
agriculture does not mean going back 50
years to a less complicated agriculture (9).
People with a particular view of what sus-
tainable agriculture is all about sometimes
are not willing to acknowledge that other
versionjs may be equally legitimate (18).
There are many paths to a sustainable agri-
culture; it is not so important which path is
selected, but rather that the path leads to the
16 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
desired goal—a healthy agriculture that can
be passed on to future generations (77).
Most importantly, if a farming method is
not profitable, it cannot be sustainable. If
producers are to adopt methods that result
from a low-input concept, the technology
must be based on more than a whim and a
promise. Information and education ob-
viously should be a part of any new govern-
ment program related to sustainable agricul-
ture (12). Sustainable systems must be re-
source-conserving, environmentally sound,
socially supportive, and commercially com-
petitive. Rural schools, banks, supply stores,
elevators, and hospitals are crucial to im-
proving the overall sustainability of our
agricultural sector (3). The socially optimal
balance between ecology and economics
must be derived farm by farm, crop by crop,
and field by field.
In conclusion
In the long run, there is no conflict
between the ecologic, social, and economic
dimensions of sustainability. A system must
be ecologically sustainable or it cannot per-
sist over the long run and thus cannot be pro-
ductive and profitable. A system must be
productive and profitable over the long run
or it cannot be sustained economically, no
matter how ecologically sound it is (12).
At present, low-input farming is still more
a philosophy and spirit of farming than an
easily defined set of principles. The objec-
tives of a clean environment and a sustain-
able production system are important and
desirable goals. Modern, progressive agri-
culture—farmers and agribusiness—need
not be defensive on this issue. A positive,
forward-looking approach is much more ap-
propriate and acceptable, and necessary, to
the overall well-being of all sectors in the
agricultural business community.
The challenge of the 1990s will be to
strike a reasoned balance between com-
peting interests and goals. The 1990 farm
bill will have to be responsive to all legiti-
mate goals. The issue is whether it will do
so in a systematic and thoughtful way that
gives the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and farmers the policy tools and flexibility
needed for the problems of the 1990s. Flex-
ibility in new programs and policies will be
essential to allow more creative, ambitious,
profitable, and locally acceptable strategies
to emerge that underwrite major progress
toward reconciling stewardship and agricul-
tural production needs and responsibilities
(19).
Certainly, the 101st Congress will tackle
agriculture's research and stewardship chal-
lenges under progressively tighter fiscal con-
straints. However, if Congress wants all
farmers to have an opportunity to use new
farming systems, it must assist limited re-
source farmers to expand their management
skills. For farmers who don't fit the early
adopter profile, it will be important that
federal policymakers put forth an extra ef-
fort to make sure they have access to the
resources needed for the successful adop-
tion of innovations (14).
There is a need to better coordinate the
work and programs of the many federal,
state, and local organizations and the private
sector involved in researching and pro-
moting environmentally safe production
practices (10). We must remove all institu-
tional barriers and disincentives that prevent
producers from taking advantage of im-
proved agricultural methods (8,19). A com-
plete understanding of alternatives via re-
search and the implementation of proven
alternatives through educational programs
have potential for a more sustainable agri-
culture than legislative mandates (17). These
methods should be based on proven science
and sound agronomic research, and they
should incorporate modern technology to the
fullest.
Many of the issues raised here, which
have international as well as domestic di-
mensions, will be addressed during the de-
liberations now beginning on a 1990 omni-
bus farm bill, where resource conservation
and environmental protection could be a key
title (4). Hopefully, in the course of the
debate over the 1990 farm bill, the facts
about the limitations of the low-input, sus-
tainable agriculture management strategies
will be brought out, the positive aspects of
the low-input, sustainable agriculture pro-
gram will be identified, and a plan that can
be acceptable to mainstream agriculture will
be developed. But mainstream agricul-
ture—farmers and agribusiness—cannot af-
ford to sit on the sidelines. All must get in-
volved in the legislative process to ensure
their interests are represented properly. Fail-
ure to do so will contribute to the decline
of one of the few industries in the United
States that has managed to retain world-class
status and is capable of continuing to be
highly competitive in world markets.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Beck, R. H. 1989. Statement presented before
the U.S. Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on
Conservation and Forestry, June 22, 1989.
Washington, D.C.
2. Bickel, L. 1974. Facing starvation: Norman
Borlaug and the fight against hunger. Reader's
Digest Press, New %rk, N.Y.
3. Brown, G. E. 1989. The critical challenges fac-
ing the structure and function of agricultural
research. J. Production Agr. 2: 98-102.
4. Congressional Research Service. 1989. Agricul-
ture and the environment. The Library of Con-
gress, Washington, D.C.
5. Congressional Research Service. 1989. Soil and
water conservation issues in the 101st Congress.
The Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
6. Douglass, G. K. 1984. The meanings of agri-
cultural sustainability. In Agricultural Sustain-
ability in a Changing World Order. West View
Press, Boulder, Colo. pp. 3-29.
7. Fleming, M. H. 1987. Agricultural chemicals
in ground water: Preventing contamination by
removing barriers against low-input farm man-
agement. Am. J. Alternative Agr. 2(3): 124-130.
8. Fowler, W. 1989. Farm conservation and water
protection act. Congressional Record: S.5,164-5,
166.
9. Francis, C. A., J. W. King, D. W. Nelson, and
L. E. Lucas. 1988. Research and extension agen-
da for sustainable agriculture. Am. J. Alterna-
tive Agr. 3(2,3): 123-126.
10. Hess, C. E. 1989. Statement presented before the
U.S. Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Con-
servation and Forestry, June 22, 1989. Wash-
ington, D.C.
11. Hoeft, R. G., and E. D. Nafziger. 1988. Sus-
tainable agriculture. In Proc., Illinois Fertilizer
Conference. Univ. 111., Urbana-Champaign, 2
pp.
12. Ikerd, J. E. 1989. Statement presented before the
U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on De-
partment Operations, Research, and Foreign Ag-
riculture, July 19, 1989. Washington, D.C.
13. Keeney, D. R. 1989. Statement presented before
the U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on De-
partment Operations, Research, and Foreign Ag-
riculture, July 19, 1989. Washington, D.C.
14. Kleckner, D. L. 1989. Statement presented before
the U.S. Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on
Conservation and Forestry, June 22,1989. Wash-
ington, D.C.
15. Klor, D. 1989. Statement presented before the
U.S. Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Con-
servation and Forestry, June 22, 1989. Wash-
ington, D.C.
16. Krome, M. 1989. Statement presented before the
U.S. Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Con-
servation and Forestry, June 22, 1989. Wash-
ington, D.C.
17. Laughlin, C. W. 1989. Statement presented be-
fore the U.S. Senate Agriculture Subcommittee
on Conservation and Forestry, June 22, 1989.
Washington, D.C.
18. Lockeretz, W. 1988. Open questions in sus-
tainable agriculture. Am. J. Alternative Agr.
3(4): 174-181.
19. National Research Council. 1989. Alternative
agriculture. National Academy Press, Wash-
ington, D.C.
20. Office of Technology Assessment. 1979. Pest
management strategies. Rpt. No. OTA-F-98.
U.S. Gov. Printing Off., Washington, D.C.
21. Office of Technology Assessment. 1988. Tech-
nology and the American economic transition:
Choices for the future. Rpt. No. OTA-TET283.
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, D.C.
22. Reetz, H. F., P. Fixen, andL. Murphy. 1989.
LISA-the industry perspective. In Proc., 40th
Annual Far West Regional Fertilizer Confer-
ence. Potash and Phosphate Inst., Atlanta, Ga.
23. Ruttan, V. W. 1988. Sustainability is not enough.
In Symposium on Creating a Sustainable Agri-
culture for the Future. St. Paul, Minn.
24. Stinner, B. R., and J. H. Garfield. 1989. The
search of sustainable agroecosystems. J. Soil and
Water Cons. 44(2): 111-116.
25. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1989. USA
88-89: Low-input sustainable agriculture re-
search and education projects funded in 1988
and 1989. Washington, D.C.
26. U.S. House Committee on Government Opera-
tions. 1988. Low-input farming systems: Benefits
and barriers. Rpt. No. 100-1097. Washington,
D.C.
27. Youngberg, I. G. 1989. Statement presented be-
fore the U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee
on Department Operations, Research, and for-
eign Agriculture, July 19, 1989. Washington,
D.C.
28. Zinn, J. A., and J. E. Blodgett. 1989. Agriculture
versus the environment: Communicating
perspectives. J. Soil and Water Cons. 44(3):
184-187. D
January-February 1990 17
-------
Agriculture's
search
for sustailiability
and profitability
Tradeoffs between resource conservation and environmental
soundness and productivity and competitiveness are the key
In the search for sustainable agricultural systems
By John E. Ikerd
E sustainable systems necessarily
profitable? Are profitable systems
necessarily sustainable? The an-
swers to these questions depend on whether
one talks about the long or short run or
about an individual farm or society in
general.
Sustainability, by definition, is a long-term
concept. The term sustainability, as used
here, refers to forming systems that are
capable of maintaining their productivity
and utility indefinitely. Sustainable systems
must be resource-conserving, environmen-
tally compatible, socially supportive, and
commercially competitive.
Systems that fail to conserve the resource
base eventually lose their ability to produce.
Systems that fail to protect the environment
eventually destroy their reason for existence.
Farming systems that fail to provide an ade-
quate food supply at reasonable costs lose
their utility to society. And finally, systems
that are not commercially competitive will
not generate the profits that are necessary
for economic survival.
A system must be profitable in the long
run or it cannot be sustained. A system must
be sustainable or it cannot be profitable in
the long run. Some may quibble about the
philosophical concept of long run and at
what point in time sustainability and prof-
Jolm E llcerdlsa visiting professor in the Depart-
ment of Agricultural Economics, University of
Missouri, Columbia, 6SS.ll, and project leader for
the Low-Input, Sustainable Agriculture, Farm Deci-
sion Support System project, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
liability converge. But most would agree that
in the long run there is no conflict between
sustainability and profitability.
Even in the short run, there is no conflict
between sustainability and profitability from
the standpoint of society as a whole. Soci-
eties that exploit resources and degrade the
environment for unsustainable, short-run
benefits are not profitable from the stand-
point of society as a whole. They create an
illusion of productivity and profitability by
failing to consider all social costs. One seg-
ment of society bears the costs that another
segment ignores, or one generation bears the
costs that a previous generation failed to
consider. Social benefits exceed costs only
for those systems that also are sustainable.
The conflict between sustainability and
profitability arises for individual producers
in the short run. Profitable individual farm-
ing systems may or may not be sustainable
in the long run. Also, sustainable, individ-
ual farming systems may or may not be prof-
itable in the short run. Thus, a conflict may
arise that forces farmers to choose between
short-run profit maximization and long-run
sustainability. This potential conflict is the
root of most economic issues related to low-
input, sustainable agricultural systems.
A sustainable, individual forming system
must be able to survive short-run losses due
to periodic crop failures or depressed mar-
kets that characterize the agricultural sec-
tors of most economies. Thus, sustainable
farming systems may be unprofitable, at least
at times. In fact, sustainable farming systems
may be less profitable than unsustainable
"BWB
alternatives, even for extended periods of
time.
Farmers may generate short-run profits by
mining or wasting the resource base,
degrading the environment, or exploiting the
consuming public. Such systems are not sus-
tainable in the long run, but they may well
be profitable, even most profitable, for ex-
tended periods of time.
This potential conflict between long-run
sustainability and short-run profitability is
perhaps the most significant question con-
fronting U.S. farmers today.
Are low-input systems sustainable?
Low-input, sustainable agriculture is a rel-
atively new term and, thus, has no univer-
sally accepted definition. The term actual-
ly embodies two separate concepts: low-
input and sustainable agriculture. These two
terms do not mean the same thing.
The term "low input," as used here,
means systems that rely less on external,
purchased inputs and more on internal re-
sources (10). Some people add other quali-
fications to purchased inputs, such as non-
renewable energy, inorganic, or synthetic in-
puts (3). These qualifications add clarity in
some contexts but add confusion in others.
The broader concept of inputs, which in-
cludes all external or purchased inputs, is
used here unless otherwise specified.
There is no clear division or point of sep-
aration between low-input and high-input
farming systems. Thus, lower input rather
than low input might be a more appropriate
18 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
-"- -~"! =ii*iss8BSS
term. Systems become lower input ones over
time as they increase their reliance on pro-
ductivity from internal resources and reduce
reliance on purchased inputs. Higher input
systems substitute external inputs for inter-
nal resources instead. Lower input, like
profitability, can be viewed either in the long
run or short run.
Lower input systems may or may not be
more sustainable than higher input, conven-
tional farming systems. Lower input systems
tend to be more resource-conserving and en-
vironmentally compatible than conventional
systems that rely more on external purchased
inputs. Thus, if the socioeconomic dimen-
sions of sustainability are ignored, low-input
may appear to be synonymous with sus-
tainability.
However, the socioeconomic issues of
sustainability cannot be ignored. Questions
regarding sustainability of lower input sys-
tems tend to focus on their productivity or
ability to support growing populations and
on their commercially competitiveness with
higher input systems. Continuing profitabili-
ty tends to reflect both productive efficien-
cy and commercial competitiveness.
Systems that are both lower input and sus-
tainable must measure up to socioeconomic
standards of productivity and competitive-
ness, in addition to resource conservation
and environmental soundness. Neither lower
inputs nor higher profits alone are adequate
short-run measures of sustainability.
In some cases, lower input systems may
also be higher profit systems, even in the
short run (2). In many cases, however,
farmers may be forced to choose between
systems that are more resource-conserving
and environmentally sound and alternative
systems that are more productive and com-
mercially competitive.
The search for sustainability in agricul-
ture, in a practical sense, is the search for
an acceptable balance between lower exter-
nal inputs and greater profitability.
Are we going backward?
Critics of low-input, sustainable agricul-
tural systems point out similarities between
lower input systems and earlier conventional
agricultural systems. They have observed the
positive correlation between greater reliance
on purchased inputs and greater agricultural
output at lower costs. Does lower input
mean lower output? Aren't low-input, sus-
tainable agricultural systems really farming
systems of the past rather than farming
systems of the future?
U.S. farmers have persistently increased
their reliance on purchased inputs over the
past several decades because of the need to
reduce costs, remain competitive, and pur-
sue greater profitability in their farming op-
erations. Conventional, higher input farm-
ing systems have become conventional, that
is, widely adopted, in large part because
farmers were motivated by the promise of
greater profitability.
Efficiency gains from specialization gen-
erally have been recognized and widely ac-
cepted for centuries as an economic fact of
life. Profitability from higher input farming
Soil Conservation Service/Ron Nichols
systems has come in no small part from re-
alization of gains from specialization. Com-
mercial fertilizers and synthetic pesticides
allowed farmers to abandon crop rotations
and mixed livestock, cropping systems in fa-
vor of more specialized cropping and spec-
ialized livestock systems. Low energy prices
also allowed economic use of larger, more
specialized equipment and production facil-
ities that encouraged greater specialization.
The trend toward greater reliance on ex-
ternal inputs has not been limited to com-
mercial fertilizers and pesticides or nonre-
newable, energy-based inputs. Specialization
also has facilitated greater use of specialized,
hired labor. And it has allowed farmers to
acquire more specialized knowledge bases
and management skills, sometimes taking
the form of paid consultants. The shift
toward greater reliance on these particular
external inputs has important but often ig-
nored implications for socioeconomic sus-
tainability.
Farming seemed to be following the spe-
cialization trends of other sectors of the
economy. Farms were becoming factories
without roofs; specially trained people per-
forming specific tasks at specific times;
assembly lines dictated by weather; farmers
following recipes that specify varieties,
tillage practices, fertilizers, irrigation sched-
ules, pesticides, and harvest times required
to produce a quality-controlled product.
Why consider changing that trend? Low-
input, sustainable agriculture implies diver-
sification rather than specialization. Such
systems require broad knowledge rather than
January-February 1990 19
-------
specialized information or training. They re-
quire judgment and flexibility rather than
assembly-line repetition. There are no
recipes for successful low-input, sustainable
agricultural systems.
Old concepts with new technologies. A
return to more diversified, less specialized
farming systems docs not necessarily mean
a return to farming systems of the past. A
wide range of technology is available today
that was not available to farmers 40 or 50
years ago. Farmers who use low-input, sus-
tainable agricultural systems now may be
able to use many of those technologies to
enhance the productivity of internal re-
sources, thus reducing dependence on ex-
ternal inputs.
First, low-input, sustainable agriculture
docs not imply total elimination of external
inputs, only lower use of external inputs.
Thus, low-input, sustainable agricultural
systems that use environmentally compati-
ble level of fertilizers and pesticides and
nonrenewable energy conservatively may be
far more productive and profitable than
similar systems of 40 years ago.
Microcomputers represent a new tech-
nology that holds great promise for old
farming systems'. Computer setups costing
less than $3,000, for example, give farmers
access to more computing power than that
available to most large corporations less than
three decades ago. Microcomputers can
complement and enhance the farmer's man-
agement abilities, allowing him or her to ef-
fectively substitute information and knowl-
edge for purchased inputs.
A farmer with a computer can plan,
organize, direct, and control the most com-
plex of farming systems. Today's farmers can
apply logic and scientific knowledge to sys-
tems that farmers of the past managed most-
ly by intuition and guesswork.
Modern mechanization likewise opens
new opportunities for farmers to apply old,
tried, and proven principles. No-till and low-
till farming equipment not only conserve
and enhance the soil resource but make in-
tercropping systems more feasible and po-
tentially profitable. Deep-tillage systems can
improve drainage and inherent productivi-
ty of soils and reduce water quality risks.
Modern electric fencing makes intensive
grazing systems economically practical, ena-
bling possibly greater returns from forages
used in crop rotation systems.
These are just a few of the technologies
that until recently were viewed largely as
ways of enhancing specialized farming oper-
ations. But they may have equal or even
greater impacts on enhancing the potential
productivity and profitability of low-input,
diversified farming systems. All that is re-
quired is a change in the fanning paradigm,
a new model or way of thinking. With a new
paradigm, diversified farming may be
viewed as the system of the future rather
than the system of the past.
Not only may existing technology be ap-
plied in new ways, but new technology may
be forthcoming that will make possible even
more sustainable and profitable farming sys-
tems in the future. Systems technology may
follow once there has been a change in the
farming paradigm.
Rising costs of specialized systems. There
are several other logical reasons why farm-
ers should question the advisability of con-
tinuing the trend toward greater reliance on
external, purchased inputs, even if they view
a return to diversified systems as going
backward. First, there are growing indica-
tions of declining effectiveness of the tech-
nologies that allowed greater specialization.
Insects are becoming resistant to insec-
ticides, necessitating higher rates of applica-
tion or new insecticides. New insects some-
times replace the old. Beneficial insects
often are destroyed along with the pests, re-
quiring even greater reliance on insecticides,
at higher costs. The same types of problems
are appearing for herbicides as new weeds
appear after others are brought under con-
trol. In addition, herbicide build-up in some
soils seems to be causing problems.
Some previously fertile soils have lost
organic matter and natural fertility through
monocropping or removal of aftermath year
after year. Lower organic matter levels have
meant less ability to hold water and nutrients
in root zones, meaning lower yields from a
given level of water and fertilization or
higher fertilizer costs to maintain yields.
Other costs of increasing specialization
are beginning to show up in the environment
of farm families and workers. Health risks
in handling pesticides have become a ma-
jor issue in farm safety. These risks even-
tually translate into less effective pest con-
trol, higher labor costs, or greater health
risks for family members.
Chemical contamination of farm water
supplies is another emerging concern of
farm families. This issue, as much as any
other, has increased the awareness of farmers
to the potential environmental hazards of
chemically dependent farming. Until recent-
ly, the environmental costs of increased use
of chemical fertilizers and pesticides were
external to the farm or imposed on society
in general. The health risks to farm families
and workers are internal costs and thus com-
mand the immediate attention of farmers
(4).
In short, current trends in fertilizer and
pesticide use seem to point to an increasing
cost of supporting specialized farming sys-
tems. Research currently is underway to val-
idate or refute this hypothesis and, if valid,
to evaluate its significance.
However, some farmers already have seen
costs increase and productivity fall to the
point where gains from specialization no
longer offset increased costs. For them,
lower input systems are also the most prof-
itable systems.
Gains from integration: Synergism.
Gains from specialization are undeniable,
but specialization is not the only route to
greater efficiency. There are potential gains
also from integration. The productivity of
an integrated system can be greater than the
sum of the products of the individual system
components. This phenomenon is called
synergism (8). Specialized systems sacrifice
the potential gains from synergistic interac-
tion among the various components of diver-
sified systems.
An obvious example of synergism is the
interaction between livestock and crop rota-
tions that include high quality legume forage
crops. Livestock add value to the forage and
recycle nutrients back to the soil in the form
or manure. Legumes add nitrogen to the
soil, break row-crop pest cycles, and pro-
vide feed for the livestock. Livestock with-
out high-quality legume pastures may not be
profitable. Legume rotations without live-
stock may not be profitable. However, in-
tegrated livestock, legume rotation systems
may add profitability to the total farming
operation. This is but one example of the
potential synergistic gains from integrated
farming systems.
Risk is another important but often
overlooked consideration in diversification.
Risks are far greater in a specialized farm-
ing operation than in a diversified farming
system with the same basic level of uncer-
tainty in each system component.
For example, assume that one farmer has
four enterprises and that each has an equal
chance of returning a positive $6,000 or
negative $2,000 net return in any given year.
Thus, if they all are positive, the farmer will
make $24,000, and if they all are negative,
he or she will lose $8,000. But let's assume
that the enterprises are totally uncorrelated.
Net returns from each enterprise move up
or down independently of each other.
Now assume that another farmer spe-
cializes in one of the four enterprises but
produces four times as much of it as our first
farmer, The second farmer has the same
chance of making $24,000 or losing $8,000
in any given year as the first has of making
$6,000! or losing $2,000 on that one par-
ticular enterprise.
Both farmers have the same long-run
average or expected net return, about $8,000.
However, the diversified farmer is far more
certain of a positive return than is the
20 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
specialized farmer. In fact, the variability of
his net return from year to year will be on-
ly about one-half as great as for the spe-
cialized farmer in this case.
Risk-reducing effects of diversification are
even greater if enterprise returns are cor-
related negatively, but will be less if they are
positively correlated. Statistically calculated
variance relationships between specialized
and diversified operations vary from case to
case. However, the general relationship
holds: diversified systems yield more stable
returns over time than do specialized
systems. This is the foundation for the old
saying, "Don't put all your eggs in one
basket."
Many farmers are only beginning to rec-
ognize the wisdom of this old advice. The
risk of specialization seemed acceptable to
farmers when farm export markets boomed
during the 1970s. But the risks became in-
tolerable for many farmers during the farm
crisis of the early 1980s. Most crop pro-
ducers currently are shielded from those
risks by a generous federal farm program.
But more and more are asking if there isn't
a better way—a way that will address the en-
vironmental questions surrounding modern
agriculture and allow farmers to use the risk
insurance provided by nature through more
diversified farming systems.
The threat of regulation. Another reason
for questioning greater reliance on external
inputs is growing evidence of their external
social or environmental costs. Environmen-
tal concerns have replaced farm profitabil-
ity at the top of the political agenda for ag-
riculture in Washington (9). This is a direct
result of a growing awareness of the envi-
ronmental impacts of an agriculture that de-
pends upon chemical fertilizers and syn-
thetic pesticides.
Nitrogen fertilizer and a select group of
herbicides seem to represent the greatest
agricultural threat to groundwater contami-
nation. Soil erosion carries a wider range
of potential chemical contaminants from
farms into surface water supplies. Sedimen-
tation of lakes and streams is still another
significant external cost of specialized sys-
tems of continuous cropping.
Water quality has moved to the top of the
research agenda. However, accurate assess-
ments of negative environmental impacts
and associated social costs may take several
years (7). It seems doubtful that state and
federal legislators will wait for a consensus
on this issue before they act. Thus, farmers
cannot afford to wait for regulation before
they search for alternative farming systems.
Threats of regulation may be the primary
motive for many farmers who have become
interested in low-input, sustainable agricul-
tural systems. Public policy provides a
means to internalize costs that otherwise
would be external and thus of no economic
consequence to individual farmers. Costs of
technologies that have allowed specialization
may outweigh gains from specialization
when all costs, private and social, are ac-
counted for.
In fact, regulations may impose costs in
excess of total social costs. This potential
for overregulation provides an additional in-
centive for farmers to address environmen-
tal concerns voluntary. The threat of regula-
tion provides a primary motive for farmers
to ask whether or not they should reexamine
the feasibility of low-input systems.
Sustainable profits, not profit maximiza-
tion. Many farmers feel special respon-
sibilities to society that go beyond those
spelled out in government regulations.
Farmers occupy most of the geographic area
of the United States. They own most of the
country, so to speak. Farmers also are
responsible for providing food, clothing, and
shelter for the people. People depend upon
farmers for their very existence.
Society has given special consideration
SUSTAINABLE MUST BE
PROFITABLE
As a nation, we are now centering much
debate and rhetoric around "sustainable
agriculture." As a society, we have been
able to achieve a real mind set as to what
sustainable agriculture is. Unfortunately, in
my opinion, we immediately identify it as
some sort of new and oftentimes exotic ap-
proach to the business of farming, such as
growing Belgian endive, or other new and
(to us) strange crops, often along the way
ignoring markets, adaptability to our cli-
mate, and similar concerns.
While such factors as government farm
programs, conservation concerns, and water
quality are factors in sustainable agricul-
ture, I feel we tend to miss the most im-
portant factor, namely, that sustainable
agriculture, to be sustainable, must first and
foremost be profitable.
Ultimately, profitable agriculture must re-
main the cornerstore of what we view as
sustainable. Without profits, producers can-
not continue in the business of agriculture.
When we recognize this, we can then direct
our efforts to deal with concerns about
water quality and quantity, conservation,
and appropriate use of chemicals in agri-
culture—issues that concern farmers as well
as the public in general.
Farmers themselves are as important to
the concept of sustainable agriculture as soil
and water. The business of farming must
be profitable for it to be sustainable.—Bryce
P. Neidig, Nebraska Farm Bureau Federa-
tion, Lincoln.
and concessions to farmers reflecting these
critical relationships. Many farmers, in
return, feel a moral obligation to fulfill their
responsibilities and live up to this trust. This
gives such farmers a set of values that can-
not be captured in the dollar-and-cent
language of most economic analyses.
Many farm families also place a high
value on farming as a way of life. They may
be willing to work harder for less money be-
cause they feel that the farm is a good place
to live and to raise their children. They may
value enterprises and activities that provide
opportunities for family interactions and
learning experiences in terms other than net
returns.
But farmers cannot live on appreciation
from society. And a desirable quality of life
requires an acceptable level of income. A
farming operation must be profitable or it
cannot fulfill its social responsibility or be
a good way of life for farm families.
Profitability is a necessary and, thus, im-
portant objective of any farming operation.
However, profitability does not imply the
same thing as profit maximization. Many
farmers appear to be at least as concerned
with other objectives as with profits. Such
farmers, in growing numbers, support the
alternative agricultural movement in U.S.
agriculture.
Alternative agriculture includes farmers
who identify with a wide range of concepts,
including low-input, sustainable, regenera-
tive, organic, holistic, agroecology, and
others (7). All of these alternative agricul-
tural concepts have one thing in common.
They challenge the concept of profit max-
imization as the dominant factor in farm
decision-making. Many formers are chal-
lenging the wisdom of conventional farm-
ing systems because they challenge the mo-
tive of profit maximization, which has
driven farmers to greater specialization.
Economic implications
Economists seem well prepared to deal
with the macroeconomics of the social costs
and social benefits associated with sus-
tainable agricultural systems.1 However, they
seem less prepared to deal with the micro-
economic, farm-level choices among con-
ventional enterprises and sustainable farm-
ing systems. The microeconomics of sustain-
able agriculture call for a change of eco-
nomic paradigms, but not a change in the
basic principles of economics. We need new
economic mind-sets or models but not new
'Havlicek, Joseph, and Fredrick Hitzhusen. "Micro- and
Macro-Economic Aspects of Sustainable Agriculture."
Paper presented at the International Conference on Sustain-
able Agriculture Systems, Columbus, Ohio, September
1988.
January-February 1990 21
-------
economic principles to address the issue of
sustainability.
Economics is the social science that deals
with allocation of scarce resources among
competing ends. Economics provides the
principles for making choices that enable so-
ciety and individuals to realize as much sat-
isfaction as possible from limited resources.
The basic assumptions of economics are that
wants and needs are unlimited and that re-
sources are scarce. We do not have sufficient
resources to provide everyone with every-
thing. We must make difficult choices.
The fundamental principles of economics
are derived from the law of diminishing
returns. As more and more of any good or
service is consumed, at some point that
good or service diminishes in its ability to
provide added satisfaction. As more and
more of any input is applied to a given, fixed
resource base to produce something useful,
at some point the input will diminish in its
ability to add productivity.
Decisions based on sustainability are in
no way inconsistent with these basic eco-
nomic principles or with the fundamental
laws on which economic principles are
based. In fact, the issue of sustainability
seems to be a perfect illustration of the rele-
vance of economics to real world problems.
How are scarce resources best used for the
greatest benefit for individuals and society?
This is the fundamental question of eco-
nomics.
However, many conventional economic
paradigms or models are based on economic
assumptions that are not valid when deal-
ing with issues of sustainability. Economists
simply need to rethink their paradigms, not
their fundamental laws. They need to go
back to the basics.
Profit maximization. The assumption of
profit maximization allows economists to
develop models for optimum resource allo-
cation. Profit maximization assumes that
money can be converted into any good or
service. Higher levels of net income or profit
allow farmers to have more of everything or
at least to have more of some things without
giving up anything else. Thus, more profit
will make farmers better off.
However, profits reflect only those costs
and returns that are internal to the farm and
thus are translated into dollars and cents.
Social costs and benefits are not reflected
in profits unless they are internalized
through public policy.
External costs and returns, when includ-
ed in economic analyses, are considered
through a process of constrained maximi-
zation. Constrained maximization assumes
that farmers maximize profits subject to
individual constraints that might include
maximum levels of soil loss, nonrenewable
energy use, or environmental degradation.
However, this paradigm implies that profit
maximization is the dominant consideration.
Soil Conservation Service/Charles Rowson
Tradeoffs In productivity between
external and Internal Inputs are critical in
achieving a balance between profitability
and sustainability.
22 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
Economists could just as easily assume
that farmers minimize environmental deg-
radation or maximize resource conservation
subject to a profit constraint. Such a para-
digm would seem more consistent with ob-
jectives of most farmers currently interested
in alternative farming systems. Sustainable
levels of profit may be viewed as a constraint
to achieving environmental and social ob-
jectives. Considering profit as a constraint
rather than the objective of decision-making
is completely consistent with fundamental
economic principles, but would be a new
paradigm for most economists.
Managing for multiple objectives would
seem to be a better model for those families
who view farming as a way of life as well
as a business and for those who choose to
consider social costs and benefits in their
private decisions. Managing for multiple ob-
jectives rather than maximizing profits is
good economics and good common sense.
External inputs versus internal re-
sources. Economists typically separate costs
of production into fixed and variable cate-
gories. Fixed costs are associated with any
resource or input that already is committed
to the production process. Fixed costs will
be the same regardless of how much, or
even if nothing, is produced.
Variable costs are associated with those
inputs not yet committed to production. Dif-
ferent quantities of variable inputs can be
used, and the level chosen will affect costs
of production and expected levels and pro-
duction or output.
Economic analysis typically begins by
assuming a given level of fixed costs asso-
ciated with committed resources. The ob-
jective then becomes to choose the level of
variable input that will maximize profits or
net returns.
This paradigm has been used by econo-
mists to show that any deviation from profit-
maximizing levels of purchased inputs,
nitrogen fertilizer, for example, will repre-
sent a reduction in farm profits (5). This
traditional paradigm ignores the possibility
of generating productivity and profitability
from internal resources as well as from ex-
ternal inputs.
Assume, for example, that 200 pounds of
nitrogen is the profit-maximizing level of
total nitrogen for a corn crop on a given field
in a given year. This might indicate an ad-
dition of 180 pounds of nitrogen, assuming
that 20 pounds of nitrogen are available from
the soil. Traditional economic analysis
would imply that any deviation from the 180
pounds of purchased nitrogen input would
reduce profits.
This paradigm ignores the possibility of
generating nitrogen through management of
the soil resource rather than purchasing
-------
nitrogen externally. Profits might instead be
maximum with 130 pounds of purchased
nitrogen per acre if 50 pounds of nitrogen
could be generated at a lower cost internal-
ly, through the use of legumes, for exam-
ple, than the cost of 50 pounds of nitrogen
purchased in commercial fertilizer.
The paradigm of fixed and variable re-
sources is not an inherent limitation of
economic analysis. Economics provides the
concepts and tools for dealing with changes
in productivity of resources as well as in-
puts. The limitations are not in the economic
principles but rather in the way those prin-
ciples have been applied.
Resource risks—the cost of dependence.
The concept of comparative advantage com-
monly is used by economists to illustrate
potential gains from specialization and trade
(6). The principles of comparative advan-
tage show that maximum output can be
achieved at minimum cost if all producers
specialize in producing things they can pro-
duce most efficiently relative to other
producers.
Specialized producers can trade their
surplus production to others who have
specialized in producing other things. Each
producer trades with others to acquire the
things they need and want but did not pro-
duce for themselves. By realizing com-
parative advantages, everybody could be bet-
ter off without making anybody worse off.
Comparative advantage is a valid, useful
concept. However, it ignores risks that are
associated with real world economic deci-
sions. In a perfect world, everyone would
depend upon each other. In a perfect world,
we would have perfect information about the
present and the future. In the real world,
however, we have learned that we cannot
always depend upon others for our own well
being, and we face uncertainty concerning
both the present and the future.
Few countries are willing to depend totally
on any other country for its survival. Coun-
tries sacrifice potential gains from special-
ization and free trade to maintain some min-
imum level of economic security. Few
regions, states, or communities within coun-
tries seem comfortable with employment
bases that rely on markets or input suppliers
in places beyond their economic control or
influence.
Countries, regions, and communities rec-
ognize the necessity to specialize as a means
of realizing their comparative advantages.
The costs of self-sufficiency are too high.
However, they also are willing to sacrifice
some level of economic gain from speciali-
zation to maintain a degree of economic or
social independence.
Farmers who rely on external inputs and
specialized farming systems for their
economic well-being are similar in many
respects to countries, regions, and com-
munities that rely on specialization and trade
for their economic well-being. They gain
from greater economic efficiency by realiz-
ing their competitive advantages relative to
other economic entities.
However, reliance on external markets and
inputs embodies risks—risk that currently
profitable markets will be lost and risk that
inputs will no longer be available at reason-
able costs from external sources.
Perhaps the most graphic, recent exam-
ple of such risks was the reliance of U.S.
crop producers on export markets for wheat,
corn, and soybeans during the 1970s. Many
farmers borrowed large sums of money to
buy additional land and buy specialized
equipment to supply these potentially prof-
itable markets.
Specialized farmers producing export
commodities were hardest hit by the finan-
cial crisis of American agriculture in the
early 1980s. They had taken the risks asso-
ciated with dependence on external inputs,
including capital and labor-saving equip-
ment in addition to chemical fertilizers and
synthetic pesticides, to produce for markets
that were vulnerable to an unpredictable
world economy.
Farmers today who rely heavily on syn-
thetic chemical pesticides and fertilizers
must consider the risk of future restrictions
on use of those inputs. Such restrictions may
make some inputs unavailable and others
more costly. Economists have developed
well-defined concepts and tools for evalu-
ating financial risks associated with reliance
on borrowed capital. Financial risks are a
specialized case of the more general concept
of resource risks.
The economic principles of decision-
making under uncertainty and risk are ade-
quate to address the issue of resource risks
associated with various levels of reliance on
purchased inputs versus internal resources.
However, those principles are yet to be ap-
plied to the question of low-input, sus-
tainable agricultural systems.
The key: Tradeoffs
Tradeoffs are the key to decision-making,
the key to evaluating the sustainability of
farming systems. Systems must be chosen
that consider tradeoffs between resource
conservation and environmental soundness
on the one hand and productivity and com-
petitiveness on the other. In many cases, this
will mean considering tradeoffs between
long-run sustainability on the one hand and
greater short-run profitability on the other.
Tradeoffs between productivity from ex-
ternal inputs and productivity from internal
resources are critical in achieving an accept-
able balance between short-run profitabili-
ty and sustainability. Productivity from in-
ternal resources is the result of synergism
achieved through integrated farming sys-
tems. Productivity from external inputs often
reflects gains from specialization. Tradeoffs
between gains from specialization and gains
from integration are critical in developing
systems that are both profitable and sus-
tainable.
Tradeoffs between comparative advantage
and resource risks are another critical con-
sideration in balancing short-run profitabili-
ty with long-run survival. Systems that are
most profitable in the short run may be most
vulnerable in the long run.
Economics is the science of tradeoffs.
Economics is sometimes called the dismal
science because it points to the tradeoffs of
potential cost and potential benefit associ-
ated with each decision alternative. How-
ever, economics is reality. There are poten-
tial costs associated with each potential ben-
efit in all cases of significant choice. There
are potential losses in short-run profitabili-
ty that must be weighed against the benefits
of long-run sustainability.
Better decisions rarely result from sys-
tematically ignoring reality. Economics has
a vital contribution of make to low-input,
sustainable agriculture. Economists must be
willing to change their paradigms to address
the relevant issues. Low-input, sustainable
agriculture advocates must be willing to ac-
cept economic reality.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Council for Agricultural Science and
Technology. 1988. Long term viability of U.S.
agriculture. Rpt. No. 114. Ames, Iowa.
2. Dobbs, Thomas, Mark Leddy, and James
Smolik. 1988. Factors influencing the economic
potential for alternative farming systems: Case
analysis in South Dakota. Am. J. Alternative
Agr. 3(1): 26-34.
3. Edwards, Clive. 1990. The importance of in-
tegration in sustainable agricultural systems. In
Clive Edwards, Rattan Lai, Patrick Madden,
Robert H. Miller, and Gar House [eds.] Sus-
tainable Agricultural Systems. Soil and Water
Cons. Soc., Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 249-264.
4. Francis, Charles. 1988. Sustainable versus non-
sustainable resources: Options for tomorrow's
agriculture. Nat. Forum: Phi Kappa Phi. J.
LXVII (3): 7-9.
5. Holt, Don. 1988. Agricultural production
systems research. Nat. Forum: Phi Kappa Phi
J. LXVII (3): 14-18.
6. Ikerd, John E., Bob Glover, Joe Purcell, Jim
Cornelius, Keith Scearce, and Par Rosson. 1988.
Finding competitive advantages in agriculture.
Ext. Serv., Univ. Ga., Athens.
7. Macher, Ron. 1989. Agroecology: What's it all
about? Missouri Farm (January-February):
8. McNaughton,- Noel. 1988. Sustainable
agriculture: Farming that lasts. Univ. Alta.
Agr. and Forestry Bull. 11:4.
9. Myers, Peter C. 1988. Agriculture and the en-
vironment. Soil and Water Cons. News (July): 5.
10. Rodale, Robert. 1988. Agricultural systems: The
importance of sustainability. Nat. Forum: Phi
Kappa Phi J. LXVII (3): 2-6. D
January-February 1990 23
-------
Policy
proposals
to foster
sustainable
agriculture
By Chuck Hassebrook and Ron Kroese
SUSTAINABLE agriculture is changing
American agriculture, in spite of
public policies hostile to the farmers
who practice it. Until recently, sustainable
agriculture was shunned by most of the agri-
cultural research establishment. Even today,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's low-
input/sustainable agricultural (LISA) re-
search program accounts for less than one-
half of one percent of the federal investment
in agricultural research and extension. Fed-
eral farm commodity programs penalize sus-
tainable agriculture. Midwestern farmers
who use low-input crop rotations have
smaller corn acreage bases and consequently
forego as much as two-thirds of the de-
ficiency payments received by continuous
corn producers. Finally, low-input, sustain-
able farmers whose crop rotations enhance
soil tilth and thereby reduce soil erosion do
not get adequate credit under the universal
soil loss equation (USLE) and conservation
compliance. If they farm credible soils, they
arc likely to be encouraged by the local of-
fice of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
to switch to chemical-intensive systems,
such as no-till, continuous corn and drilled
soybeans.
Farm bill goals and proposals
The 1990 farm bill presents the oppor-
tunity to change public policy to facilitate
Quick Hauebiwk is program leader of initiatives
in stewardship, technology, and \vorld agriculture at
the Center for Rural Affairs, P.O. Box 405, mithill,
ffebnuka 6S067. Ron Kroese is executive director
e/ihf Land Stmurdship Project, Marine, Minnesota
S5W7,
the development of low-input, sustainable
farming systems and reward farmers who
practice stewardship in the broadest sense.
To accomplish that, we must begin by clear-
ly defining and articulating a set of goals for
agriculture that encompass sustainability of
form communities, the resource base, and
food supplies.
Specifically, we believe that the farm bill
should aim to achieve the following goals
and purposes:
>• Maximize the number of opportunities
for self-employment in agriculture and rural
communities and foster a more equitable
economic and social structure. A substan-
tial body of sociological research indicates
that a dispersed farm structure, with many
owner-operated farms, creates healthier
communities than a large farm structure. A
University of California researcher sum-
marizes these findings as follows: "As farm
size and absentee ownership increase, social
conditions in the local community deterio-
rate. We have found depressed median fami-
ly incomes, high levels of poverty, low edu-
cation levels, social and economic inequality
between ethnic groups, etc., associated with
land and capital concentration in agriculture.
Communities that are surrounded by farms
that are larger than can be operated by a
family unit have a bi-modal income distribu-
tion with a few wealthy elites, a majority of
poor laborers, and virtually no middle class.
The absence of a middle class at the com-
munity level has a serious negative effect on
both the quality and quantity of social and
commercial services, public education, local
governments, etc." (14).
>- Prevent environmental contamination
Extension Service
and resource depletion. More than 170 mil-
lion acres of U.S. farmland are eroding at
rates that threaten its long-term productivi-
ty, endangering food security and contami-
nating surface waters (76). (This data pre-
dates implementation of the Conservation
Reserve Program and may be overstated by
about 34 million acres.) A 1985 U.S. Geo-
logical Survey study revealed that 20 per-
cent of the nation's wells are contaminated
by nitrogen fertilizers (15). More than 25
percent of Iowa's population is using drink-
ing water that contains pesticide residues
(8). To date, the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) has found 74 pesticides
in the groundwater of 38 states (18).
**• Enhance human health. While much
attention has been focused recently on issues
of food safety, growing evidence of the im-
pact of modern farming practices on the
health of farmers has received relatively
little attention. Numerous epidemiological
studies have shown a strong correlation be-
tween various types of cancer, especially
leukemias, and farming or living in agricul-
tural areas (16). Studies by the National
Cancer Institute and the University of Kan-
sas indicate that farmers exposed to her-
bicides for more than 20 days each year are
several tunes more likely than nonfarmers
to develop cancerous tumors known as non-
Hodgkins lymphomas (10).
>• Enhance the resiliency of our food and
fiber system. Of particular concern are the
impacts of resource depletion, environmen-
tal disruption, and dependence on nonre-
newable resources on long-term food securi-
ty. "U.S. oil production is poised on the edge
of a sharp drop off and with that drop off,
24 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
the "U.S. "may be unable to export food
much beyond the year 2,000" (7). Likewise,
U.S. agriculture is vulnerable to potential
rainfall reductions associated with global
warming. Although the impact of global
warming on rainfall patterns is uncertain,
some climatologists predict that the green-
house effect will shift rainfall north and east
away from the nation's best soils, moving
unirrigated corn production out of most of
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska,
and the Dakotas in 50 years (6).
>• Enhance the efficiency and profitability
of America agriculture as we address social
and environmental concerns.
Can the farm bill advance each of these
goals simultaneously? We believe that it can
if fundamental changes take place in both
current public policies and the way we ap-
proach 'farming systems.
Research policy recommendations
Agricultural research is, in effect, a form
of social planning. Choices made by Con-
gress, research institutions, and researchers
about what research is undertaken in part
determine what forming systems, varieties,
and technologies are developed, become
cost-effective, and are put to use. These
technologies, in turn, profoundly shape eco-
nomic and social structures, the natural en-
vironment, and human health. If a just so-
ciety and healthy environment are to be
achieved, these decisions must be made with
consideration of broad social and environ-
mental goals.
The highest priority for the research title
of the 1990 farm bill should be articulation
of the goals and purposes that underlie the
federal investment in agricultural research,
including the federal dollars that go into for-
mula funds, competitive grants, and other
federal agricultural research funds. Those
goals and purposes should include those
presented earlier for the structure of agri-
culture, human health, farm resiliency, and
the environment. Procedures should be de-
fined by Congress to ensure that these goals
and purposes are considered and reflected
in setting research priorities.
These procedures should include prepara-
tion of technology assessments of the range
of likely social and environmental impacts
of alternative research programs for use in
the priority-setting process. In addition, the
secretary of agriculture should annually ap-
prove or disapprove the plan of each land
grant institution for use of federal formula
research and extension funds, based on
whether that research will have the net ef-
fect of advancing the goals and purposes
established by Congress.
It is particularly important that such goals
and purposes be defined for any major in-
crease in federal funding for agricultural
research. Much of the agricultural research
community, with leadership being provid-
ed by the Board on Agriculture of the Na-
tional Academy of Science and the major
land grant universities, are uniting in sup-
port of a proposal to increase federal fund-
ing of competitive grants for agricultural
research by $500 million per year. If such
an increase is authorized and appropriated,
a portion of the research funds should be
specifically earmarked for assessing the
likely impacts of alternative research direc-
tions. In addition, requests for proposals
should list areas of research that are promis-
ing in advancing the goals articulated. Cri-
teria for judging proposals should be de-
signed to reward research that enhances eco-
nomic opportunity, the environment, human
health, and resiliency as well as efficiency.
Are these conflicting goals?
Farming systems research aimed at devel-
oping an understanding of natural systems
to enable farmers to adjust their management
practices to work in concert with nature, that
is, to reduce pests, lower petrochemical use,
conserve soil, and protect the environment,
can be shaped to simultaneously enhance ef-
ficiency and family farm opportunity. To do
so, researchers must seek efficiency by en-
hancing the role of people in agriculture and
making it possible to reduce capital expen-
ditures and input use through more inten-
sive application of skilled labor and hands-
on management. Whereas past research
sought to reduce costs by replacing two
dollars worth of time with one dollar worth
of inputs, researchers would instead seek to
improve efficiency by replacing two dollars
worth of inputs with one dollar worth of
time. Systems that rely on sophisticated and
highly motivated labor able to exercise judg-
ment in the field and barn would be better
suited to an owner-operator structure than
to an industrial system in which most labor
is provided by unskilled and poorly paid
employees.
This is not to say that public funds should
never support research that addresses large-
scale agriculture. It is appropriate to do re-
search aimed at developing better manage-
ment practices that reduce environmental
problems associated with large-scale agri-
culture. However, if increased opportunity
for family farmers is an important social
goal, it would be counter-productive to in-
vest limited public resources in research to
make large-scale agriculture more compet-
itive. Rather, the bulk of agricultural re-
search should focus on developing farming
systems that simultaneously enhance
economic opportunity, efficiency, and en-
vironmental quality.
Priority research and extension
The following areas of research and ex-
tension would advance these goals:
>- Agroecology research. As Texas A&M
University Plant Pathologist J. A. Brown-
ing says, "There is a great dearth of research
from an 'agroecosystem approach,' which
would enable farmers to choose, from
among the many interacting cropping sys-
tems and farming practices, those that work
together to produce the desired result" (1).
This would enable farmers to develop man-
agement systems that reduce input use and
maintain yield.
>• Nutrient cycling. This would include
research on nutrient cycling and manage-
ment in low-input systems, as affected by
farming practices and environmental condi-
tions.
^ Research on developing crop varieties
and livestock of potential value in address-
ing pests and other constraints that cannot
be economically controlled by changes in
farming practices. Development of corn re-
sistant to rootworms, generally controlled
by crop rotation, should be of a lower priori-
ty than research on resistance to corn borers
and diseases not easily controlled by cultural
practices. Research should address the range
of crops valuable in sustainable systems,
rather such major crops as corn, soybeans,
wheat, and cotton.
>• Research on farming in an uncertain
climate. While predictions of reduced rain-
fall from climatic change are uncertain, it
would be wise to step up research to prepare
for that possibility, including breeding more
drought tolerant plants; developing manage-
ment systems to maximize populations of
beneficial mycorrhizae fungi; and develop-
ing management practices to reduce evapo-
ration, lower crop water use, and increase
water absorption, including rotations, tillage
systems, windbreaks, organic matter man-
agement, and cover crops.
>• Research on soil-building crops.
Research is needed to develop new uses for
soil-building tree, forage, and rotation crops
and new crops that reduce soil erosion and
reliance on petrochemicals and other pur-
chased inputs.
^- Research to develop moderate-invest-
ment livestock production systems that re-
duce capital barriers to small and beginning
farmers and allow them to earn a return on
their skilled labor and intensive manage-
ment that such systems require. Disease and
breeding research would focus on overcom-
ing the stresses in such systems, including
parasites and temperature variation.
January-February 1990 25
-------
Tfotal confinement livestock systems have
contributed to the severe decline of meat and
milk production on moderate-sized, owner-
operated farms. The high investment costs
preclude moderate-scale application; the re-
petitive labor and management tasks in these
systems is then conducive to operation by
unskilled labor. For example, it costs twice
as much per cow to build confinement fa-
cilities for a 52-cow dairy as for a 600-cow
dairy (3). Moderate-investment facilities are
a better alternative to family-scale producers
seeking to minimize production costs. In
spite of the research emphasis on total con-
finement systems over the last 20 years, a
University of Tennessee study found that
hogs could be produced more cheaply in a
moderate-investment, farrow-to-finish sys-
tem than in a high-investment, total confine-
ment system (72).
Research on moderate-investment live-
stock production systems should include ef-
forts to improve the nutritional content of
the crops grown on diversified farms to re-
duce the need for feed supplement pur-
chases. This would reduce the significance
of the economic disadvantage smaller farms
face in buying feed supplements. Small hog
producers pay much more for their feed sup-
plements than larger producers (79).
^ Extension programs specifically de-
signed to reach small- and moderate-sized
formers, including potential beginning farm-
ers and minority farmers who might other-
wise be left behind by rapidly changing tech-
nology. We are entering the era of informa-
tion-intensive agriculture, as we make great-
er use of biotechnology and low-input, sus-
tainable systems. Whereas in recent years
those who lacked capital were left behind,
in coming years those who lack information
will be left behind (9). If society wants to
protect a base of small farm operators, it
may be necessary to undertake a major ex-
tension effort to develop their management
capabilities (73). The content of the program
should include a major focus on low-input
and low-investment systems appropriate to
farmers with limited capital. The program
should include procedures for identifying
research needs of participating farmers and
feeding those needs into the land grant re-
search priority-setting process.
>• Innovative extension programs. Such
programs arc needed to engage the public
in the debate over the future of the food and
agricultural system and involve them in set-
ting agricultural research priorities.
Finally, funding for the LISA program
should be increased to $50 million per year,
from its current $4.45 million. In spite of
being woefully underfunded, this program
has been successful in stimulating a substan-
tial amount of research with potential for
developing a more economically, environ-
mentally, and socially sound agriculture.
Farm program recommendations
Just as research priorities tend to set social
policy, federal commodity programs in large
measure determine what crops farmers will
produce. With regard to sustainable agricul-
ture, USDA's income protection programs
discourage the broader adoption of less
chemically intensive approaches to fanning,
often forcing producers committed to more
sustainable methods to sacrifice economical-
ly in order to farm in a manner consistent
with their environmental values.
Many farm-level studies comparing low-
purchased input, sustainable farming sys-
tems with conventional systems have dem-
onstrated the efficacy of sustainable agricul-
ture. Institutional and on-farm research proj-
ects during the past two decades have shown
that sustainable farming practices can elim-
inate or reduce the use of petrochemicals
with only modest, if any, yield reductions.
These studies also have shown reduced pro-
duction costs, increased net returns, and im-
proved energy efficiency (2). Other macro-
economic and social benefits cited in reviews
of organic and low-input farming include
decreased soil loss and runoff, reduced
depletion of fossil fuels, improved fish and
wildlife habitat, and protection of soil pro-
ductivity and water quality for future
generations (4).
The recent report on sustainable or, as the
study calls them, "alternative" agricultural
approaches by a committee of the National
Research Council's Board on Agriculture
confirms those findings, stating in its ex-
ecutive summary: "The committee's review
of available literature and commissioned
case studies illustrates that alternative sys-
tems can be successful in regions with dif-
ferent climatic, ecological, and economic
conditions and on farms producing a varie-
ty of crops and livestock. Further, a small
number of farmers using alternative systems
profitably produce most major commodities,
usually at competitive prices, and often
without participating in federal commodity
and income support programs" (5).
The study goes on to point out the enor-
mity of the influence commodity program
rules have on agriculture practices, noting
that the provisions governing allowable uses
of base acres promote specialization in one
or two crops and that between 80 and 95
percent of all acreage producing corn, other
feed grains, wheat, cotton, and rice current-
ly are enrolled in federal commodity pro-
grams. The study concludes:
"Many federal policies discourage adop-
tion of alternative practices and systems by
economically penalizing those who adopt
rotations, apply certain soil conservation
systems, or attempt to reduce pesticide ap-
plications. Federal programs often tolerate
and sometimes encourage unrealistically
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" (5).
Clearly there is wide agreement that fed-
eral commodity programs must change if the
United States is to attain a low-input, sus-
tainable, family farm-based agricultural sys-
tem. Proposals range from calls for demand-
based, supply management with loan rates
approaching parity, to decoupling farm in-
come support from production altogether,
to a variety of suggestions that to various
degrees adjust and amend current programs.
All of the proposals are motivated by the fur-
ther goal of reducing the amount of money
paid out annually to producers through the
federal Commodity Credit Corporation,
which in 1987 and 1988 amounted to $34
billion,
While it is clear that farmers need to be
given flexibility in their production deci-
sions, we do not join those who advocate
eliminating farm programs or decoupling
payments from farm production and prac-
tices. The free market does not reward stew-
ardship of natural resources. Further, de-
coupling would sever the vital link of ac-
countability between the American taxpayer
and the nation's food production system—a
foolhardy move toward domestic insecurity
in a nation where all of us who eat are de-
pendent upon the three percent who are food
producers. Rather, we believe that farmers
should be supported for successful farming,
for "meeting the expectations of the land,"
as geneticist/ecologist Wes Jackson has said.
Commodity programs should stimulate
farmers to practice careful stewardship by
diversifying crops and livestock, rotating
crops, and greatly reducing the use of toxic
chemicals. Program benefits should be tar-
geted to family-sized farmers who demon-
strate through their fanning methods a com-
mitment to this type of stewardship.
The following policy changes are recom-
mended to help move agriculture in this
direction:
>• Base and payment protection should be
extended to all farmers who use environmen-
tally sound crop rotations. Farmers should
be encouraged to plant up to 40 percent of
farm program base acres to a resource-con-
serving legume or legume/small grain mix-
ture as part of a soil-conserving, water-pro-
tecting crop rotation, while retaining the
base and receiving the same deficiency pay-
26 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
ment as he or she would have received for
planting the program crop.
>• The acres on which a farmer can re-
ceive payments should be capped at 66 to
80 percent of planted acres to reduce the
current incentive to produce only program
crops. Money saved could be used to boost
payments to farmers employing sustainable
practices. Under the current program, a
farmer producing continuous corn receives
three times the farm program benefits as a
farmer using a more sustainable corn-soy-
bean-oat/clover rotation.
>• In the long term, base acres for farms
should be fundamentally redetermined, not
according to cropping history, but according
to the suitability of the land to grow the re-
spective program crops. Bases would be lim-
ited to the extent and types of cropping that
do not degrade the long-term productivity of
the soil or contaminate water. With the high-
ly accurate mapping of soils now completed
in much of the country and the increased in-
formation available regarding areas par-
ticularly vulnerable to groundwater degrada-
tion, such an approach based on the suit-
ability of the land is possible, but it would
no doubt take several years to put into place.
>• In addition, payment yields used in
calculating program benefits should be set
according to the inherent productivity of the
land rather than proven yields. Such a
system would remove the incentive for pro-
ducers to fertilize heavily to increase farm
program benefits.
>• To more effectively and consistently
direct farm program benefits to family-sized
farms, a two-tiered, target price system
should be established with a limit placed on
the volume of production supported at the
higher rate. Deficiency payments, the
amount paid by USDA to producers to com-
pensate for low market prices, should be
based on the higher target price on no more
than $80,000 to $100,000 worth of program
commodities. In effect, that would mean that
under current price levels government pay-
ments at the full rate would be limited to
30,000 to 36,000 bushels of corn or 20,000
to 25,000 bushels of wheat. Eligibility for
the higher target price should be phased out
as the nonfarm income of an eligible pro-
ducer exceeds the national median income
or as the total income (farm and nonfarm)
exceeds twice the national median income.
Larger producers and farmers exceeding
the income limits would receive payments
at a lower level. In effect, this lower tier
would reimburse farmers for participating
in supply control and conservation programs
while the higher tier would provide addi-
tional income support for moderate-sized,
moderate-income farmers who depend on
the farm for their livelihood.
>- USDA should establish a program of
multiyear set-aside contracts for a minimum
period of three years to further bring pro-
duction under control in an environmental-
ly responsible manner. At least 20 percent
of the land taken out of production each year
should be included in such multiyear con-
tracts. Any highly erodible land included in
multiyear contracts should be established in
permanent cover. All other land included in
any set-aside or diversion programs, includ-
ing annual set-asides, should be required to
be rotated and sown in a soil-building le-
gume crop to provide full-year protection,
with up to 20 percent reserved for wildlife
habitat. Cost-share funds should be provided
to compensate farmers for costs of estab-
lishing vegetative cover.
>• A low-input, sustainable agriculture
program should be implemented to reward
farmers who use sustainable farming sys-
tems and encourage others to move in that
direction. Legislation introduced last year
by Senator Wyche Fowler (D-Ga.) and Rep-
resentative Jim Jontz (D-In.) would create
such a program. Farmers, with the help of
their county SCS and Extension Service of-
fices, would develop five-year, farm-specific
plans, which, by the end of the period,
would limit chemical use to low levels and
hold soil erosion to rates that do not threaten
long-term soil productivity. Under the pro-
gram, participants' yield histories could not
be adjusted downward during the five-year
transition period. If implementation of the
low-input plan resulted in lower total pro-
duction, the farmer's acreage set-aside re-
quirement would be reduced. Deficiency
payments would be made on the base acres
devoted to resource-conserving crops, such
as small grain/legume mixtures, just as if
they had been planted to the program crops.
For farmers with low bases due to historic
use of low-input, sustainable rotations, the
Jontz proposal would increase crop bases for
purposes of receiving these payments. The
Fowler version would preserve 1989 target
prices for five years for participants.
Other policy recommendations
SCS should incorporate low-input, sus-
tainable agricultural approaches into its tech-
nical assistance programs and adopt means
of measuring erosion that account for the
full erosion control benefits of low-input
rotations. The USLE does not consider the
effects of crop rotations on soil organic mat-
ter and soil structure and subsequent effects
on water infiltration. Consequently, it does
not account for the full erosion control ben-
efits of diverse rotations, especially those in-
cluding cover crops and forages. The USLE,
therefore, may overestimate erosion on many
farms using low-input rotations (JJ).
This bias in the means of measuring soil
erosion has contributed to an emphasis in
SCS technical assistance on chemical-inten-
sive cropping systems, such as no-till, con-
tinuous corn, which may be misguided.
Greater net environmental benefits may well
be found, particularly when taking into ac-
count groundwater quality, by encouraging
adoption of low-input cropping systems de-
signed to enhance soil structure and organic
matter levels. USDA's water erosion predic-
tion project is developing a new erosion pre-
diction model to replace the USLE. This
model should be designed to measure the
full erosion control benefits of such systems.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Browning, J. A. 1985. Plant disease and nema-
tode control. Off. Tech. Assess., U.S. Cong.,
Washington, D.C.
2. Buttel, F. H., G. W. Gillespie, Jr., R. Janke, B.
Caldwell, and M. Sarrantonio. 1986. Reduced-
input agricultural systems: Rationale and pro-
spects. Am. J. Alternative Agr. 1: 58-64.
3. Buxton, Boyd M. 1985. Economic, policy, and
technology factors affecting herd size and
regional location of U.S. milk production. Off.
Tech. Assess., U.S. Cong., Washington, D.C.
4. Cacek, T, and L. L. Langner. 1986. The eco-
nomic implications of organic farming. Am. J.
Alternative Agr. 1: 25-29.
5. Committee on the Role of Alternative Farming
Methods in Modern Production Agriculture.
1989. Executive summary. In Alternative Agri-
culture. Nat. Acad. Press, Washington, D.C.
6. Decker, Wayne L. 1985. The implications of
climate change for 21st century agriculture. In
The farm and Rod System in Transition: Emerg-
ing Policy Issues. Ext. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr.,
Washington, D.C.
7. Gever, John, et al. 1986. Beyond oil. Ballinger
Publ. Co., Cambridge, Mass.
8. Hallberg, George. 1986. From hoes to her-
bicides: Agriculture and groundwater quality.
J. Soil and Water Cons. 41(6): 356-364.
9. Harshbarger, C. Edward. 1987. Financial sur-
vival in an era of technological change. J.
Agribus. (February): 37-40.
10. Hoar, S. K., etal. 1986. Agricultural herbicide
use and risk oflymphoma and soft tissue sar-
coma. J. Am. Medical Assoc. 256: 1,141-1,147.
11. Jackson, Mary. 1988. Amish agriculture and no-
till: The hazards of applying the USLE to unusual
farms. J. Soil and Water Cons. 43(6): 483-486.
12. Johnston, Gene. 1984. Mid-cost hog system
shows most profit. Successful Farming
(November): 116-117.
13. Kliebenstein, James, and Y. Shin Seung. 1987.
Impact of BST on dairy producers. Dept. Econ.,
Iowa State Univ., Ames.
14. MacCannell, Dean. 1983. Agribusiness and the
small community. Off. Tech. Assess., U.S.
Cong., Washington, D.C.
15. Madison, R. J., and Jilann Brunett. 1985. Over-
view of the occurrence of nitrate in groundwater
of the U.S. Water Qual. Paper 2275. U.S. Geol.
Surv., Reston, Va.
16. Strange, Marty, Liz Krupicka, and Dan Looker.
1984. The hidden health effects of pesticides. In
It's Not all Sunshine and Fresh Air. Center for
Rural Affairs, Walthill, Nebr.
17. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1987. The sec-
ond RCA appraisal. Washington, D.C.
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988.
Pesticides in ground water data base. Wash-
ington, D.C.
19. Van Arsdall, Roy N., and Kenneth E. Nelson.
1985. Economics of size in hog production.
Tech. Bull. No. 1712. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S.
Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C. D
January-February 1990 27
-------
Social traps and incentives:
Implications for low-input,
sustainable agriculture
By Jeffery R. Williams
RECENT attention concerning low-
input, sustainable agriculture sys-
tems brings to the forefront concern
that conventional agricultural production
methods result in a "social trap." The term
refers to situations in which an individual
or society starts in a direction or relationship
that later proves to be unpleasant or lethal,
with no easy way to change or avoid the
situation (7,10, 11). A social trap typically
occurs when conflicts exist between highly
motivating, short-run rewards and long-run
consequences.' A social trap also occurs
when a personal reward or punishment con-
flicts with a group's goals. In this case an
individual acts for his or her personal gain
and in the process prevents the group from
obtaining a reward or objective. In design-
ing public policy to encourage sustainable
agriculture, a major consideration is the
tendency of individual behavior to be moti-
vated more by immediate personal gain than
by the long-run public interest—which leads
to a social trap.
Current agricultural production methods
may lead to social-trap problems. Producers
use fertilizers and pesticides to increase
short-run production levels and profits, with
encouragement by current agricultural pol-
icies that attempt to maintain low food prices
and high farm incomes. In the long run,
however, these production techniques and
policies may result in externalities for other
producers and the consumer, including
chemical residues on food products, nitrate
contamination of water supplies, and toxic
chemical exposure. The immediate personal
goal or self-interest that leads to the use of
purchased inputs to produce greater profits
can result in detrimental, long-run personal
and societal outcomes.
Although public support for agriculture
is still prevalent, it is eroding as the impacts
of agricultural practices and policies on form
employment, the environment, the structure
of agriculture, and rural communities are in-
creasingly perceived as negative and severe
Jfffery R, Wllfanu is a professor. Department of
4gff«(//«ra/ Economics, Kansas Stale University,
Mattliattan, 66S06. Tltc author tlumks Andy Barkley
jbr comments on this article.
Soil Conservation Service/Tim McCabe
(2). Agricultural producers are caught in a
social trap because of the incentives they
receive for current production practices.
Adoption of low-input, sustainable sys-
tems is enticing because of the potential re-
duction of externalities or negative conse-
quences of the social traps on society. A
question often raised at public meetings and
in the popular press is this: How do we get
farmers to adopt low-input, sustainable sys-
tems? Often, the immediate answers given
'Use of addictive, illegal drugs can serve as an example of
a social trap that has negative implications for the drug user
and for society. In some cases, a biochemical reinforcement,
or a "good" feeling, arises from drug use, which leads to
addiction. There also may be social reinforcement from the
individual's peer group in the short run. Long-run negative
consequences, however, include poor psychological and
physical health for the individual and a number of related
consequences for society, including increased crime, higher
health insurance costs, lower productivity, and decreased
safety.
are either voluntary use through education
or direct government regulation. But im-
plementation of low-input systems could be
encouraged by breaking the current social
traps. How are social traps changed?
Low-input's social trap
A problem of this nature usually cannot
be solved by a few volunteers, although this
solution is often suggested. The problem is
not the result of a single person or small
groups acting unethically. Even if individ-
uals act differently to reduce the long-term
consequences of their actions, the outcome
will not change significantly without collec-
tive action by a critical number of the re-
source users (7). Many tend to see exter-
nality problems created by agriculture as
problems with information or education.
Some suggest that if farmers are educated
on how to reduce environmental externalities
caused by their current production practices,
they will act accordingly.
Although education about technological
solutions is important to change production
practices, financial incentives provided by
public policies also are needed. Abdalla and
Libby (1) discuss the need for this approach.
The current "rules of the game" have incen-
tives (reinforcement for current practices)
that contribute greatly to current production
methods in spite of externalities created for
society. Because of individual micro-motives
and existing incentives, we cannot assume
that producers will take action even if they
are educated about the problem and how to
deal with it. Individual producers may view
the current situation in any of the following
ways:
>• Most individuals believe that each per-
son's impact is small with regard to the over-
all problem, and consequently, the contribu-
tion they can make toward solving it is also
small, particularly in relationship to the po-
tential cost of contributing.
>• An individual's cost of changing pro-
duction practices may be large, and the in-
dividual's contribution to the public benefit
will go to all, including those who do not
contribute.
28 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
*• Individuals are uncertain that they will
be rewarded with any personal benefit from
the action they take, because of the lack of
action taken by others and a poor under-
standing of the actual environmental benefit.
>• Individuals who take no action also
may benefit because of others' actions, with
no expense to themselves.
For these reasons, the number of volun-
teers needed to achieve the desired results
may not be achieved, and the few who do
volunteer (those who may agree with the
purpose regardless of the cost to themselves
and the resulting benefit) will have little im-
pact. These types of group problems have
been discussed by Olson (9) and by Schmid
VI).
Breaking the social trap
The solution to breaking the social trap
is to change the reinforcement mechanism.
Incentives can change the reinforcement re-
lationship in a social trap. They play a large
role in reinforcing current practices of in-
dividuals; therefore, a set of different incen-
tives can play a large role in changing the
practices of producers. Policy mechanisms
have to be developed to make environmen-
tal goals financially viable and part of pro-
ducers' economic decision-making.
There is a widespread belief that low-
input, sustainable agricultural systems, at
least in the immediate future, will be un-
profitable and risky. In addition, educational
information has been geared largely to prac-
tices using purchased inputs. Recent atten-
tion has been given to the impact of cultiva-
tion practices on soil conservation. Soil con-
servation, however, is only one aspect of the
sustainability issue. Farmers may be con-
cerned about adequate support and knowl-
edge, through traditional channels, for deal-
ing with low-input, sustainable management
problems (a problem not unlike the early
adopters of farm computers experienced).
Although low-input, sustainable systems
may yield immediate benefits, such as the
risk-reducing effects of diversifying with
rotations, farmers run the institutional risk
of violating provisions of the government
commodity program and losing eligibility
for government payments. Therefore, re-
wards to encourage changes in current pro-
duction practices are needed to get out of
the social trap.
Financial incentives could be used as a
reward for adopting or encouraging low-
input, sustainable systems. For example,
cost-sharing and tax credits to establish new
practices could be used to encourage the
reduced use of specified chemicals. Tax
credits, which result in increased after-tax
income, could be used to encourage farmers
to attend training sessions and adopt low-
input techniques. Government commodity
programs could be reformulated to include
production practice guidelines for eligibility.
Purchased chemicals and fertilizers also
could be taxed as an incentive to reduce their
use and to encourage increased efficiency in
their use. Shortle and Dunn (12) indicate that
appropriately specified management prac-
tice incentives, for example, taxes or sub-
sidies, should generally be superior to stan-
dards. Less use of chemicals would likely
lead to less production and a reduction in
surplus commodities. Because of the in-
elastic demand for food, commodity prices
then will rise with the decline in production
and may lead to higher net farm revenues
even though production is reduced. As a
result of lower levels of input use, fewer
pollutants are delivered to the environment.*
Also, federal farm commodity program
costs would likely be reduced.
Of course, the response to a tax would
depend on the elasticity of demand for
purchased inputs, as well as input price
changes. A tax might have to be extremely
high to offset the possibility of increased
returns because of higher prices. Agrichem-
ical use and profit-maximizing behavior
have been discussed in detail (3).
Some sectors of the economy would ex-
perience undesirable impacts. Food costs as
well as feed costs for livestock would rise.
The volume of manufactured inputs, trans-
ported inputs, and employment in related in-
put industries would likely decline. Export
markets also may be adversely affected.
Chemical use can be characterized as ex-
cessive for several reasons, according to
Daberkow and Reichelderfer (3); the prin-
cipal reason is this: "Externalities arising
from agrichemical use imply that privately
determined optimal rates of use are higher
than their corresponding social optima.
Underground and surface water quality, food
residues, human health, and farmworker
safety are the common externalities associ-
ated with agrichemicals. Failure to incor-
porate these negative-valued outputs under-
prices agrichemicals." By imposing a tax on
the use of such chemicals, a higher cost per
unit can be brought to bear on the user and
thus encourage lower levels of chemical
usage. The effect is to change the delay in
the social trap situation. A tax converts long-
range consequences for society into im-
mediate consequences (higher costs) for the
producer who creates the externalities.
A tax, however, would not be easy to im-
plement. Research would be required to
determine the level of tax needed to change
producer behavior. If the demand for chem-
icals is quite unresponsive to price, large
taxes may be necessary to change farmer
behavior. Implementation of the proper
levels for a wide variety of inputs may prove
difficult. Other programs, such as educa-
tion, subsidies, tax credits, and cost-sharing,
would likely be needed to encourage alter-
native practices.
Incentive-based approach
A charge system imposing additional fees
and taxes on chemical inputs using a market-
based incentive approach, as well as incen-
tive payments for adopting alternative prac-
tices, may be preferable to a regulated solu-
tion that enforces specific farming practices
or bans specific chemicals. Costs of devel-
oping and disseminating information and ad-
ministering and enforcing a mandated tech-
nological solution may be large in com-
parison, although enforcement and informa-
tion systems to monitor the result will be
necessary under any alternative.
Madden (8) suggests that low-input, sus-
tainable methods would be highly site-
specific. Therefore, it would be difficult to
dictate the techniques to use for reducing en-
vironmental externalities through regulation.
Farmers would be affected differently. In-
centive-based systems would allow the en-
trepreneurs to decide how best to adjust farm
production to obtain a higher level of en-
vironmental quality, given strong financial
incentive to do so. A cost imposed on a pol-
lution-causing activity and a reward to adopt
alternative practices, instead of regulations
to change action, would provide incentives
for change. Although regulation is impor-
tant and should not be ruled out, incentives
should be allowed to play a role when ap-
plicable. A technical discussion of standards
versus incentives is provided by others (5,
72). Nontechnical discussions of subsidies,
taxes, and standards also are available (4, 6).
Attention must be given to conflicting in-
centives as well. To a large extent, current
government program restrictions prevent the
construction of alternative sustainable rota-
tions, including legumes. The restrictions
use crop yields and base acre figures from
historical production. Only certain types of
crops are eligible for deficiency payments.
A more detailed discussion of how the com-
modity program encourages conventional
agricultural practices is provided by Young
(13). Crop insurance requirements are also
an impediment because they specify that
producers must use generally accepted pro-
duction practices. Although the Conserva-
tion Title of the 1985 Food Security Act es-
tablishes some incentives for soil conserva-
tion, many of the resulting management
strategies for conservation compliance re-
quire greater use of chemicals for weed and
pest control. Therefore, new incentives can-
January-February 1990 29
-------
not be established without examining the in-
centives inherent in current agricultural
policy that create the social traps we wish
to avoid.
The task ahead
The agricultural community not only has
the difficult task of defining and identify-
ing low-input, sustainable systems but also
of developing initiatives whereby the systems
will be implemented. Policies have to in-
clude incentives so the resulting impact of
such policies benefits producers and con-
sumers of agricultural products alike. These
initiatives must be taken before other interest
groups use the opportunity to dictate agri-
cultural production methods. As Batie (2)
staled, agricultural issues are continually be-
ing placed on the agenda of nonagricultural
interests, and nonagricultural interests are
gaining prominence in agricultural issues.
Financial incentives provide a means to sup-
plement the regulatory power of government
and to create an environment in which farm-
ers' and society's interests converge and the
social trap is broken.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Abdalla, Charles, and Lawrence Libby. 1987.
Agriculture and ground water quality: A public
policy perspective. Am. J. Alternative Agr. 2:
37-41.
2. Batie, Sandra S. 1988. Agriculture as the prob-
lem: New agendas and new opportunities. S. J.
Agr. Econ. 20: 1-11.
3. Daberkow, Stan G., and Katherine H. Reich-
elderfer. 1988. Low-input agriculture: Trends,
goals and prospects for input use. Am. J. Agr.
Econ. 70: 1,159-1,166.
4. Davis, Otto A., and Morton I. Kamien. 1972.
Externalities, information, and alternative col-
lective action. In R. Dorfman and N. Dorfman
[eds.] Economics of the Environment. W. W.
Norton, New York, N.Y. pp. 69-87.
5. Griffin, Ronald, and Daniel Bromley. 1982.
Agricultural runoff as a nonpoint externality.
Am. J. Agr. Econ. 64: 547-552.
6. Harrington, Winston, Alan J. Krupnick, and
Henry M. Peskin. 1985. Policies for nonpoint-
source water pollution control. J. Soil and Water
Cons. 40: 27-32.
7. Johnston, George H., David Freshwater, and
Philip Favero. 1988. Natural resource and en-
vironmental policy analysis: Cases in applied
economics. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.
8. Madden, Patrick. 1989. Policy options for a more
sustainable agriculture. In Proc., Conf. on In-
creasing Understanding of Public Problems and
Policies. Farm Found., Oak Brook, 111. pp.
134-142.
9. Olson, Mancur. 1965. The logic of collective ac-
tion. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass.
10. Platt. John. 1973. Social traps. Am. Psychologist
28: 641-651.
11. Schrnid, A. Allan. 1987. Property, power and
public choice: An inquiry into law and econom-
ics. PraegerPubl., New York, N.Y. pp. 172-179.
12. Shortle, James S., and James W. Dunn. 1986.
The relative efficiency of agricultural source
water pollution control policies. Am. J. Agr.
Econ. 68: 668-677.
13. %ung, Douglas L. 1989. Policy barriers to sus-
tainable agriculture. Dept. Agr. Econ. Wash.
State Univ., Pullman. D
ATTRA: ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
"What can you tell me about ginseng?"
Not an unreasonable question from someone
interested in botany, but how about from
someone looking for advice about a new
agricultural enterprise? At the offices of Ap-
propriate Technology Transfer for Rural
Areas (ATTRA) in Fayetteville, Arkansas,
a question about ginseng would not be
unusual. It would receive the professional
treatment afforded any other question related
to a potentially profitable sustainable enter-
prise.
ATTRA is a relatively new program,
started by the National Center for Appro-
priate Technology, headquarters in Butte,
Montana, in 19S7, in response to important
issues, including groundwater contamina-
tion, food safety, and the desire of farmers
to reduce chemical inputs and increase prof-
itability. ATTRA has been funded annually
through a federal appropriation.
ATTRA is a service that collects and
analyzes information on low-input, sustain-
able agriculture and makes it available to ex-
tension agents, fanners, and rural commun-
ities. It is the only program in the United
States dedicated exclusively to providing in-
formation about sustainable agriculture tech-
nology to the public.
ATTRA can help farmers directly on im-
portant profitability questions by providing
information and technical assistance that will
generate cost savings while using soil and
water resources in an environmentally sound
manner. ATTRA also can help farmers by
putting them in contact with experts that can
offer assistance with marketing and diver-
sification options.
ATTRA is not a referral service, nor does
it necessarily provide exhaustive data on a
particular topic. The service is designed to
give the questioner enough information to
decide whether to pursue the matter further
and a list of resource people and sources
needed to turn the answer into a workable
solution.
Sustainable agricultural technologies are
attracting attention from a broad audience.
Evidence for this can be seen in the number
and type of requests ATTRA has received.
The program has fielded more than 6,000
phone calls to date and receives more than
100 calls weekly. Farmers account for almost
one-half of the total technical cases the
ATTRA staff handled in fiscal year 1988. Ex-
tension agents constitute 10 percent of the
users, while private organizations, rural non-
farm residents, and the general public com-
bined for about 40 percent of the remaining
cases.
By far, the largest group of questions
(more than 40 percent) center on reducing
use of agricultural chemicals in field, fruit,
and vegetable crops. ATTRA has received
specific questions on crop management prac-
tices, such as crop and variety selection, fer-
tility practices, and pest management, spe-
cifically, biological controls on field or hor-
ticultural crops.
The second largest category of technical
questions have to do with animal enterprises
(15 percent). Producers want information on
animal feeds, health and research, aquacul-
ture, production of wool, wildlife game man-
agement, and beekeeping.
Policy, economics, and education con-
stitute the next largest group of questions (13
percent). The issues that have been raised
include options for farmers interested in mar-
keting their products directly to consumers,
export opportunities, and credit and finance
strategies.
A broad class of miscellaneous questions
(12 percent) include requests for information
on storage facilities, food safety, health and
nutrition, agribusiness, labor, and rural de-
velopment.
The large number of inquiries related to
chemicals indicates that more research is
needed to develop less toxic alternatives for
current farming technologies. Not only do
new farming techniques need to be devel-
oped, but information providers should be
advised of these options and encouraged to
present them to the farmer.
The questions also reveal tremendous in-
terest in diversification options. Farmers and
ranchers view new product development as
a means of responding to health and safety
issues while simultaneously improving their
economic standing.
With the growing interest in sustainable
agriculture, ATTRA is seeking ways to ex-
pand its information network in three ways:
working imore closely with extension agents
and other field personnel; developing infor-
mation packets for limited resource farmers;
and establishing better partnerships with
large producers growing such commodities
as corn, wheat, and soybeans.
Sustainable agriculture is here to stay
because it makes economic, environmental,
and common sense. ATTRA intends to be
a leader in providing the best information
possible to ranchers, farmers, and agricul-
tural professionals interested in exploring
sustainable farming options. If you have a
question about sustainable agriculture, an
answer may be only a toll-free telephone call
away—1-800-346-9140.—Robert J. Gray,
president, and Diane J. Vosick, policy
analyst, Resource Management Consultants,
Inc., 1920 N Street, N.W. Suite 400A,
Washington, D.C.
30 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
Perspectives from industry
Five representatives of the agricultural chemical industry share their corporate
philosophies on the concept of agricultural sustainabilijy
Editor's Note: Following the SWCS-
sponsored conference, "The Promise of
Low-Input Agriculture, A Search for Sus-
tainability and Profitability,'' and in plan-
ning this special issue of the JSWC, the
editorial staff asked representatives of sev-
eral agricultural chemical firms the fol-
lowing question: How does your company
define sustainable agriculture and what
are you doing in terms of research to meet
those goals? Following are the responses
received from each of these industry rep-
resentatives.
Profitability under free
enterprise
Sustainable agriculture is a broad term
open to interpretation by anyone who ad-
dresses the subject. Let us refer to it here
as that level of productivity that allows the
agricultural enterprise to be economical-
ly competitive.
Advance planning is necessary. By know-
ing each field, we can use only those chem-
icals needed, resulting in the best econom-
ics and maximum safety to the environ-
ment. BASF long ago recognized the waste
inherent in treating the soil (pre-emergent)
versus treating the weeds (post-emergent).
As a companion practice, we advocated
narrow rows in soybeans for a quicker
canopy and reduced weed competition.
We also found that splitting the applica-
tion of herbicide and applying the first
spray when weeds were smaller was ef-
fective; sometimes, the second application
was unnecessary.
We additionally found that on certain
soils tillage is not needed. Not only do pro-
ducers save the time, fuel, and equipment
needed for tillage, but weed pressure some-
times declines.
No-till also offers the dramatic saving of
soil, thereby protecting long-term produc-
tive capacity, mat is, sustainable agriculture.
So, we submit the hypothesis of (a) post-
emergent chemistry, (b) narrow rows, (c)
split applications, and (d) no-till practices.
Each of these practices in their own way
offers a savings consistent with profitability
under the free-enterprise system. That
means sustainable agriculture to BASF.—
CarlE. Richgels, Sales Development Man-
ager, BASF Corporation, 100 Cherry Hill
Road, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054.
A management system
Despite all the publicity, the term sus-
tainable agriculture clearly means differ-
ent things to different people.
Some people believe it means returning
to the 1930s or 1940s with low yields and
low profits for American farmers. Others
believe it means organic farming, with no
use of commercial fertilizers and pesti-
cides. Still others think it will help save the
family farm by increasing profits through
reduced expenses while maintaining the
same or slightly lower yields. Some even
believe agricultural policies should be sig-
nificantly changed to encourage farmers to
practice sustainable agriculture.
We share the same perspective on sus-
tainable agriculture that Dr. Myron Johns-
rud, administrator of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Extension Service, recently
provided:
"Sustainable agriculture in its best defi-
nition provides an opportunity for U.S. ag-
riculture to objectively evaluate best man-
agement practices within the context of
profitability, environmental soundness, and
social acceptability. It is a systems ap-
proach to crop production that optimizes
the effectiveness of inputs, including pro-
ducer management. It is characterized by
high yields and low unit costs. In reality,
sustainable agriculture is a concept with-
out a succinct definition, but can vary from
region to region, even farm to farm and
year to year."
We believe sustainable agriculture is a
management system that maintains and en-
hances the ability of U.S. agriculture to
meet human and environmental needs now
and in the future.
It is also a farming system that uses in-
puts—both those available as natural re-
sources on the farm and those purchased
—in the most efficient manner possible to
obtain productivity and profitability from
farming while minimizing adverse effects
to the environment.
Dow will continue to support sound re-
search programs to provide the technology
to enable U.S. agriculture to become the
most productive and efficient of any in the
world.—Samuel J. Barrick, Public Affairs
Specialist, North American Agricultural
Products, Dow Chemical U.S.A., P.O. Box
1706, Midland, Michigan 48641-1706.
January-February 1990 31
-------
PERSPECTIVES FROM INDUSTRY
Profitability and practicality
The $64,000 question. Sustainable agri-
culture will mean a "profitable" American
agriculture by optimizing the efficient use
of Inputs, conserving our natural re-
sources, ensuring food safety, and pre-
serving our environment.
In my opinion, if a method of farming
is not profitable, then it cannot be sustain-
able. Low-chemical production alterna-
tives that rely on crop rotations, natural
fertilizers, and biological pest control are
not necessarily sustainable. In reality, they
may be more sustainable in certain cases
and not in others. To date, there is not suf-
ficient test data to support the premise that
"low" is "sustainable." We are not confi-
dent that the sacrifice of yield offset by
more intensive management is sustainable
for American agriculture. In the end, prof-
it, practicality, and what's right for our
country's well-being will sustain Ameri-
can agriculture.
Id's research is dedicated to sustain-
ing American agriculture. Our basic re-
search efforts are devoted to registering;
reregistering; improving; testing; formu-
lating; and comparing performance to
rates, including major efforts in biotech-
nology and seeds. We are testing and in-
troducing a portable filtration system for
removing resinates from agricultural ap-
plication equipment and the environment.
In concert with the National Agricultural
Aviation Association, we are testing new
ICI-dcveloped, low-drift aerial application
nozzles to improve deposition and reduce
drift. In partnership with Custom Applica-
tion magazine and custom applicators, we
have founded a Custom Application In-
stitute dedicated to improving application
technology and methods for proper and
accurate deposition. We have and are add-
ing to an ICI video library on product and
proper use "how to's". We have developed
computer models to help growers optimize
inputs in the production decision-making
process—"Expert," "Economics of
No-Tillage," and "The Total Competitive
Load."
Most importantly, our people are truly
dedicated to sustaining American agricul-
ture and the environment.
In addition, ICI is introducing a major
LISA (Leadership in Sensible Agriculture)
project in concert with five commodity or-
ganizations. This project will test, com-
pare, and share several sustainable farm-
ing practices with the commodity groups.
It also will be a clearinghouse for current
information on sustainable agriculture to
the commodity and environmental groups.
Eventually this project will be shared with
our global partners in other countries.
Finally, ICI will continue its support of
soil and water conservation through its ac-
tive promotion of conservation/no-tillage,
via ads, videos, field specialists, cover
crop programs, and our "Farm Ugly" pro-
motional campaign in support of compli-
ance. In sponsorship with Farm Chemicals
magazine and the Conservation Technol-
ogy Information Center (CTIC), we are
sponsoring the "No-Till Tiger" contest to
recognize outstanding no-till researchers,
distributors, and dealer/applicators.—R.
H. Foell, Manager, Agribusiness Affairs,
ICI Agricultural Products, Wilmington,
Delaware 19897.
Grabbing the reins of
change in a sound system
Such terms as LISA, sustainable agri-
culture, conservation compliance, alterna-
tive agriculture, and similar ones have
captured many headlines in the past year.
At du Pont, we participate in the agricul-
tural business in a way that supports the
same general philosophy. First, let's de-
fine the words, then the concept, followed
by a few comments on directions of re-
search at du Pont.
"Sustainable": the ability to "keep up,
to prolong" (Webster). "Agriculture": the
science or art of cultivating the soil, pro-
ducing crops, and raising livestock, and
in varying degrees the preparation of these
products for man's use and disposal (as by
marketing).
Environment is not part of the defini-
tion, but it is generally discussed, so let's
include it. "Environment": the complex
of climatic, edaphic, and biotic factors that
act upon an organism or an ecological
community and ultimately define its form
and survival.
"Sustainable Agricultural Environ-
ment": Within this phrase we include all
agricultural production and environmental
systems—from natural resources (soil,
plant life, microbiology, air, water, etc.)
to science, production, marketing, profits,
and even politics.
Many highly efficient, successful Amer-
ican farmers exemplify the concept. They
have an accumulation of more than 90
years of agricultural research, education,
conservation, technology, and personal
experiences upon which to build. They
have developed enviable, highly efficient
production and marketing systems that
continue to be profitable and sustainable,
meaning a production unit (family farms
included) that produces enough to feed the
family plus 90 others. And productivity
continues to increase! The natural re-
source base is being preserved through
contour farming, terraces, ponds, wind-
breaks, reduced tillage, judicious use of
fertilizers, and materials to control pests.
The challenge: There are ways to im-
prove the system to ensure an abundant
and nutritious supply of food and fiber.
Improvement requires change. Change
creates opportunity. While we perceive
mainstream agriculture as fundamentally
sound and miraculously productive, let's
get on with the task of continuously im-
proving it!
Du Pont research: First, the following
are elements of our official Agricultural
Products Department vision:
"It is our will to enter into a growing
partnership with nature so that we play a
leading role in creating a better world.
"We have a vision for continued im-
provement in the quality of life. We intend
to have an exciting new collaboration with
nature., .where, combining nature's gifts
and ours, we greatly exceed today's
knowledge of what is possible.
"We will work everyday to point the
32 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
PERSPECTIVES FROM INDUSTRY
way.. .thrive on change and thus.. .prosper.
In this way we will have the freedom to
choose a destiny that benefits our custom-
ers, shareholders, our neighbors, and our-
selves."
Second, please recognize that we offer
to farmers crop protection products for use
in production systems to supplement na-
tural or cultural pest control practices.
Pests prevent plants and animals from
reaching their natural productive capaci-
ty. Specifically, we offer products that help
farmers manage problems created by in-
sects, weeds, diseases, and nematodes;
problems that he or she cannot manage by
cultural or crop rotational practices alone.
Third, du Font's research direction is to
discover and develop products or proce-
dures that follow from the above vision.
We focus on low use rates, products with
insignificant toxicity; we deliver these
products in packaging systems that mini-
mize or eliminate environmental hazards,
that minimize groundwater problems; and
we develop application procedures and
schedules that allow growers to deliver
quality produce that is acceptable to the
public.
Our biotechnology research is explor-
ing nonchemical methods of pest control.
Our analytical technology can now detect
chemical residues in food, soil, water, and
air at parts per billion and even parts per
trillion for most of our offerings. This
technology will allow us to further sharp-
en our ability to develop crop protectant
use programs with insignificant residues.
In summary, we believe the agricultural
system is fundamentally sound, highly ef-
ficient, and miraculously productive. Our
food supply is the most abundant, most
affordable, and safest in the world. It is
the best! We all know these things.
We recognize our crop production tech-
nology is just one small part of this "sys-
tems" approach to an environmentally
sound, sustainable agriculture, even though
it is frequently the most criticized part of
the system.
We are committed to research in chem-
istry, biology, biotechnology, analytical
technology, improved application/delivery
systems, environmentally responsible pack-
aging and formulations. This research is
supported in the field with a technical field
sales and development staff that, through
extensive educational efforts, work through
distribution, university research and exten-
sion, conservation, farm media, and other
channels to deliver these technologies to
those who farm.
Again, our intentions are, like those who
farm as well as those who are critical of
current farming systems, to do what is
good for society—to be a part of the solu-
tion, not the problem. And like those who
farm, we recognize there is room for im-
provement. Our goal is, together with our
customers, to grab the reins of change, and
to do so enthusiastically.
Let's all work together to improve it.
However, let's start with the current highly
efficient, productive, profitable environ-
mentally conscientious farmers as our
reference point!—Dale R. Darling, Agri-
cultural Products Department, E. I. du
Pont de Nemours & Company, Walker's
Mill, Barley Mill Plaza, P.O. Box 80038,
Wilmington, Delaware 19880-0038.
Efficient and responsible
Sustainable agriculture is a management
system that uses inputs, both on-farm and
purchased, in the most efficient and re-
sponsible manner possible to obtain pro-
ductivity and profitability from a farming
operation while preserving and enhanc-
ing the quality of the environment.
IMC Fertilizer has and continues to sup-
port many activities related to attaining
and maintaining sustainable agriculture.
Among those activities are the following:
>• "Ag Issues for the 90s" Forum, at-
tended by leaders in agricultural research
and administration, agricultural lenders,
media representatives, agricultural trade
association, and other interested groups,
such as the League of Women Voters. Top-
ics include agronomic research and dem-
onstration, environmental concerns, gov-
ernment regulation and the 1990 farm bill,
food safety, risk management, and media
impact on agriculture.
>• Permanent endowment of a graduate
fellowship at the Department of Soil and
Crop Science, College of Agriculture and
Life Sciences, Texas A&M University.
Areas of interest could range from current
economic-related areas, such as sustain-
ability of agriculture and maximum eco-
nomic or efficient yield, to those of soil
chemistry and fertility.
>• Financial support for the research
project, "Agricultural Competitiveness,
Farm Input Use, and Environmental Qual-
ity" directed by C. Ford Runge, director
of the Center for International Food and
Agricultural Policy at the University of
Minnesota.
>• Continuing support of programs of
the American Society of Agronomy, in-
cluding awards for significant research ac-
complishments via the Agronomic Sci-
ence Foundation and of a "government fel-
low" from among the society membership
who spends a year in Washington, D.C.,
working with legislators and administra-
tors concerned with agricultural topics.
>• Sponsorship of summer workshops
on soil fertility and sustainable agricultur-
al topics for teachers of vocational agri-
culture under the auspices of the National
Vocational Agriculture Teachers Associa-
tion.
>• Financial support of research pro-
grams funded by the Foundation for Agro-
nomic Research and the Fluid Fertilizer
Foundation.
>• Continuing support of the educa-
tional programs of the Potash & Phosphate
Institute, including financial grants for
graduate students in agronomy and soil
science.
I*- Periodic support of agronomic re-
search at state and provincial universities
and experiment stations upon request from
the investigators conducting the work.
Support may include funding, soil and
plant analysis, and fertilizer materials, de-
pending upon the need of the researcher.
In recent years, the company has con-
tributed to 30 research and demonstration
projects in the United States and Canada.
>• Production and distribution of a
range of print and audiovisual materials
concerned with subjects of interest to
farmers and the fertilizer industry, for ex-
ample, soil testing, crop production, re-
sponsible fertilizer use, safety, and com-
munications. IMC Fertilizer recently re-
leased a 10-minute videotape and a bro-
chure entitled, "Facing Facts about the
Future of Agriculture." Single copies of
this brochure and tape are available
without charge.—Lindsay D. Brown,
Director, International Marketing Pro-
gram, IMC Fertilizer, Inc., 501 EastLange
Street, Mundelein, Illinois 60060.
January-February 1990 33
-------
Soil Conservation Service
Sorting out the environmental
benefits of alternative agriculture
By Pierre Crosson
and Janet Ekey Ostrov
PROPONENTS of alternative agriculture
contend that it has significant envi-
ronmental advantages over the con-
ventional system now followed by most crop
and animal producers in the United States.
Farmers do not adequately reflect these ad-
vantages in their economic calculations be-
cause most of the advantages, such as re-
duced off-farm damages to soil and water
quality, accrue to others. If the environmen-
tal advantages of alternative agriculture are
real, the market system that fundamentally
drives American agriculture will undervalue
alternative agriculture relative to the conven-
tional system. For this reason, policies de-
signed to stimulate alternative agriculture
should be considered.
We use alternative agriculture here to
mean the wide range of practices indicated
by terms such as "low-input," "organic," and
"regenerative" agriculture. The U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture (USDA) definition
of organic farming describes the system we
have in mind: ".. .a production system which
avoids or largely excludes the use of synthet-
ically compounded fertilizers, pesticides,
growth regulators and livestock feed addi-
tives. To the maximum extent feasible or-
ganic farming systems rely upon crop ro-
tations, crop residues, animal manures,
legumes, green manures, off-farm organic
Pierre Crosson is a senior fellow and Janet Ekey
Ostrov was a research assistant at Resources for the
Future, 1616 P Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
wastes, mechanical cultivation, mineral
bearing rocks and aspects of biological pest
control to maintain soil productivity and
tilth, to supply plant nutrients, and to con-
trol insects, weeds and other pests" (52).
Comparing system economics
Farm-level comparisons. Most of the
literature on the comparative economics of
alternative agriculture is cast at the farm
level; typically, the short-term profitability
of alternative farms is compared with that
of conventional farms. With one important
exception, the studies we reviewed (1, 10,
14,16,17, 25, 30, 32) showed that the alter-
native farming systems were less profitable
than the conventional systems.
The exception was work reported by
Lockeretz and associates (18,19, 20,21,22).
They found little difference in profitability
between the organic and conventional Corn
Belt farms they studied from 1974 through
1978. Although the organic farms had lower
yields, this was offset by lower costs—re-
duced outlays for fertilizer and pesticides
more than offsetting increased labor costs.
Consequently, net income per acre averaged
over the five years was about the same on
the two sets of farms.
In an analysis of these results, however,
Madden noted that from 1974 to 1977 severe
drought affected some parts of the study
area. In 1978, when rainfall approximated
34 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
the long-term average, per-acre net income
on the organic farms averaged 13 percent
less than the comparable county averages.1
Madden does not give a reason for this, but
one possible explanation is that organically
farmed soils have greater water-holding
capacity than conventionally farmed soils,
giving organic farms relatively more
favorable yields in dry years.
In the studies reviewed, the most obvious
reason for the lower profitability of the al-
ternative systems was the yield penalty im-
posed as a result of committing large
amounts of land to low-value rotational uses,
both to provide nutrients and to control
pests. The studies are less clear about other
causes of the yield penalty, but difficulties
of controlling pests without pesticides, par-
ticularly weeds, is a likely factor. Weed
problems were a major concern of the or-
ganic farmers surveyed by Lockeretz and
associates (22), and the Council for Agri-
cultural Science and Technology (6) cites a
number of sources indicating that organic
farmers name weed control as their number
one problem (as it is of most conventional
farmers, according to CAST).
Fawcett (72) notes that herbicides control
fast-growing weeds that compete with
emerging corn and soybean plants when soil
temperatures are cool, thus permitting
earlier planting in the spring than would be
possible if weeds were controlled by cultiva-
tion. Fawcett also asserts that herbicides give
farmers greater flexibility in the timing of
cultivation, and perhaps more important,
although Fawcett does not label it so, herbi-
cides permit continuous cropping. Herbi-
cides permit farmers to keep more of their
land in relatively high-value uses more of
the time than would be possible using a rota-
tional system of weed control.
Although the literature gives less attention
to the economic effects of the ban on insec-
ticides in alternative farming systems, an
adverse, indirect effect can be inferred from
the fact that insect control is one of the
important reasons why alternative systems
rotate land among various crops, some of
which are of relatively low value.
The CAST report (6) gives considerable
weight to banning fungicides in alternative
systems of producing some fruits and
vegetables. According to the report, foliar
fungicidal sprays are the only feasible means
of disease control for such plants as apples
and tomatoes. The CAST report also notes
that pesticides allow control of disease and
insect damage in fresh fruits and vegetables
after harvest, making it more possible to
store and ship them over longer distances
than is feasible for the same crops grown
'Madden, Patrick. 1987. "Economic Evaluation of Alter-
native Farming Practices and Systems." Unpublished paper.
organically. Thus, the ban on using these
materials may make the market for alter-
natively produced fruits and vegetables
smaller than that for their conventionally
produced competitors.
Another question is whether substituting
organic for inorganic sources of nutrients
contributes significantly to the yield dif-
ference between alternative and conventional
systems. Although there is agreement that
manure and crop residues are the major
sources of organic fertilizers used in alter-
native agriculture, scientists disagree wheth-
er such practices exact a yield penalty. Based
on data from the Rodale farm in Kutztown,
Pennsylvania, Harwood (14) asserts that "the
potential for meeting crop nitrogen needs
from legumes in rotation has been grossly
underestimated by American scientists."
The findings of Papendick and associates
(28) support those of Harwood. Olson and
colleagues (26), however, estimated the yield
effect of substituting organic for inorganic
sources of nutrients on field crops and found
it to be substantially negative. They assumed
that yields in the 1940s reflected conditions
of minimal use of inorganic fertilizers and
projected the increase of these yields to the
late 1970s on the assumption that the only
factor in the yield increase was genetic im-
provement in plant cultivars. They then used
these estimated yields in a comparison of the
economics of conventional and alternative
systems.
This seems to be a questionable procedure
because it ignores all advances in knowledge
of crop production since the 1940s except
those embodied in improved plant cultivars.
It also ignores the fact that much plant
breeding after 1940 was aimed at providing
fertilizer-responsive cultivars to take advan-
tage of the declining real price of inorganic
fertilizer, particularly nitrogen.
If organic sources of nitrogen had con-
tinued to be as cheap relative to inorganic
nitrogen as they were in the 1940s, research
on plant cultivars and farming practices
probably would have given far more atten-
tion to developing techniques for using
organic sources. In this case, present yields
of alternative agriculture likely would com-
pare much more favorably with yields of
conventional agriculture than the study by
Olson and associates estimated. Indeed,
what is now called "alternative" agriculture
might be conventional agriculture.
The finding of Lockeretz (22) that variable
costs of alternative agriculture are less than
those of the conventional system is sup-
ported in the other studies reviewed. The
main reason is the saving in purchases of
inorganic fertilizer and pesticides. The
Lockeretz study found that the alternative
farmers used only slightly more labor than
the conventional farmers. Other studies,
however, show significantly more labor with
the alternative system (25, 30).
In some instances the economic disadvan-
tages of alternatively grown products is off-
set, at least partially, by their ability to
command premium prices in specialty
markets. The literature gives many refer-
ences to this, the most complete account
being that of Oelhaf (25), whose study was
done in the mid-1970s. Whether the price
differentials he found still exist is uncertain.
Although the economic disadvantages of
alternative agriculture may explain its failure
to seriously challenge the conventional
system, economics may not be all there is
to it. Some farmers may be ignorant of the
advantages of alternative agriculture, and
others may have other noneconomic reasons
for not adopting it. Blobaum (2) did a study
of obstacles to adopting organic farming
methods, focusing on noneconomic barriers.
Based on survey responses from 214 organic
farmers in the Midwest, he concluded that
in their personal characteristics they were
much like conventional farmers and were
motivated mainly by the same practical
considerations.
When asked to list obstacles to adopting
alternative farming systems, the fanners
surveyed most often named lack of informa-
tion about practices; lack of marketing
information, especially about the availability
of markets offering premium prices for alter-
natively produced output; and the need for
more research, particularly about weed con-
trol in alternative farming systems. Some
also indicated that the supply of organic fer-
tilizers and other inputs was a problem.
Blobaum did not consider the manage-
ment requirements of alternative agriculture
as a barrier to conversion. Management was
not prominently discussed in the literature
on economics we reviewed. Clearly, how-
ever, alternative agriculture requires more
management time and skill than conven-
tional agriculture. In a discussion of some
of the key characteristics of successful or-
ganic farmers, Madden asserted that they are
"superb managers" with complete knowl-
edge of their farm operations.2 Eliminating
inorganic fertilizers and pesticides means
that the farmer must have enough under-
standing of the complex relationships among
crops, weeds, insects, diseases, and deter-
minants of soil fertility to suppress those
things that threaten the crop and encourage
those things that make it thrive. Organic
farmers also must be more careful about the
timing of their operations, as Fawcett's (12)
discussion of the advantages of herbicides
indicates.
The more demanding management re-
2Ibid.
January-February 1990 35
-------
quiremenls of alternative agriculture may be
a barrier to its more widespread adoption.
Time spent in acquiring managerial skills
and then applying them on the farm is time
not available for other purposes. Many
farmers work part-time off the farm, and for
them more on-farm work has an opportunity
cost measured by lost off-farm income.
More on-farm work also means less time
available for recreation, for family life, and
for other pursuits of value to the farmer.
Conclusions on fann-level economics.
The literature reviewed leaves little doubt
that at the farm level alternative agriculture,
its it is now practiced, is less profitable than
conventional agriculture. This is not a sur-
prising finding. If it were not so, alternative
agriculture would have already replaced con-
ventional agriculture or would be well on
its way toward doing so—which it is not.
Alternative agriculture is less profitable
because what it saves in fertilizer and
pesticide costs is not enough to compensate
for the additional labor required and for the
yield penalty it suffers relative to conven-
tional farming. The main reasons for the
yield penalty appear to be the necessary
rotation of main crops with low-value
legumes and the difficulty of controlling
weeds without herbicides.
Large-scale comparisons. What would
the economics of alternative agriculture look
like if the system were to wholly displace
the existing system? The question has been
inadequately studied. Madden says that at
present the economic consequences of a
large-scale shift to alternative agriculture
have no credible evidence. Nevertheless,
some tentative inferences can be drawn.
Oelhaf (25), Olson and associates (26),
and CAST (6) agreed that a large-scale shift
to alternative agriculture would increase pro-
duction costs, and set off a variety of other
economic consequences that would be favor-
able for farmers but unfavorable for the rest
of society. Farmers would benefit because
prices would rise more than production
would fall. Thus, gross farm income would
increase more than costs.
But the studies disagreed about the severi-
ty of the cost increase and the related con-
sequences, Oelhaf (25) estimating a smaller
cost increase than Olson and associates (26)
and CAST (6). An important reason for
Oelhaf s lower estimate is that he expects
alternative agriculture to impose a lower
yield penalty. In our judgment, Oelhaf s esti-
mate of the penalty probably is closer to the
mark than the estimates of CAST and, es-
pecially, of Olson and his associates.
The Olson and associates study (26) used
a model of the U.S. agricultural economy
to estimate the economic consequences of
using alternative agricultural systems to meet
a late 1970s level of demand for farm out-
put. No inorganic fertilizers or pesticides
were permitted in the alternative system.
Their results are determined largely by their
assumption that the wholesale shift to alter-
native farming would exact a large yield
penalty. For reasons given earlier, however,
their procedure for estimating the yield ef-
fect of substituting organic for inorganic
sources of nutrients is questionable.
Their procedure gives a much larger yield
penalty—50 percent for corn, wheat, and
soybeans, 70 percent for other feed grains—
than that found in the studies by Lockeretz
and associates (22), Helmers and associates
(16), and others in the literature we have
Sperry-New Holland
Yield penalties from rotational uses of
land In alternative systems can make
such systems less profitable than
conventional ones.
36 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
reviewed. If the penalty were less than Olson
and associates assumed, the cost, price, and
production consequences would not be as
unfavorable for alternative agriculture as
those results indicated.
CAST (6) estimated that a complete shift
to alternative agriculture would reduce
yields of most crops 15 to 25 percent, partly
because organic sources of nitrogen would
be inadequate to support current yields and
partly because of losses from weeds, result-
ing from the ban on herbicides. CAST ar-
gues that to maintain production with a 15
to 25 percent yield reduction would require
an increase in cropland of 18 to 33 percent
if the land were of the same quality as land
currently in production.
Like Olson and associates, CAST con-
cluded that a wholesale shift to alternative
agriculture would increase production costs,
drive up supply prices, reduce amounts
demanded (and hence production), and
make farmers as a group economically bet-
ter off at the expense of the rest of society.
CAST also considered distributional effects
among regions and farmers and concluded
that the corn, soybean, and cotton-growing
areas of the South and Southeast would be
relatively disadvantaged because organic
systems for combating the severe weed and
insect problems in those regions would be
less effective than in the Midwest and other
areas growing those crops. Regions having
inadequate supplies of manure or where
growing legumes is uneconomical, as in
dryland wheat-growing areas, also would be
negatively affected.
CAST also concluded that because the
switch to alternative agriculture would
require more cropland, erosion would
increase. Finally, land prices would rise,
reflecting the increase in net farm income,
and farm employment and wages would rise
because of the relatively labor-intensive
nature of alternative agriculture.
Oelhaf (25) estimated the macroeconomic
consequences of producing 1974 output with
alternative agricultural systems. Like the
Olson and associates and CAST studies, he
found that production costs would be higher
and that more land and labor would be re-
quired. Although Oelhaf s conclusions are
directionally the same as those of Olson and
associates and of CAST, quantitatively they
show a smaller cost increase and, therefore,
less severe direct impacts as a result of a
shift to alternative agriculture.
The results of each of these studies are
critically affected by the estimated yield
penalty of alternative agriculture relative to
conventional agriculture. All three studies
agree that a penalty would be exacted, but
they disagree considerably about the
amount, Although the literature reviewed
-------
supports an estimate closer to that of Oelhaf
than to those of CAST and the Olson re-
searchers, the issue is still open.
A closely related issue concerns the rela-
tionship between the conditions of supply
of organic matter and wholesale adoption of
alternative agriculture. As noted earlier, crop
residues and animal wastes are the principal
sources of organic wastes potentially
available to agriculture. Power and Doran
(31) present data showing that the nitrogen
content of all organic wastes produced in the
United States (apparently in the late 1970s)
was 8.1 million tons, 62 percent of it in ani-
mal wastes and virtually all the rest in crop
residues.
The nitrogen content of fertilizers used by
farmers at that time was 9.1 million tons,
most of which was applied to cropland.
These numbers indicate that even if 100 per-
cent of the nitrogen in crop residues and
animal wastes could be made available to
farmers on economical terms it would not
be enough to replace nitrogen fertilizers,
unless the losses of nitrogen in waste
material were substantially less than the
losses of fertilizer nitrogen.
This raises two important questions. First,
could all of the nitrogen content of crop and
animal wastes be made economically avail-
able to farmers? Second, are the losses of
nitrogen from wastes less than from fer-
tilizer?
Because an estimated 70 percent of crop
residues already is returned directly to the
soil (30), the nitrogen in this source is al-
ready available to farmers. The issue, there-
fore, is the economics of using the nitrogen
in animal wastes, 61 percent of which is ex-
creted in unconfined habitats (30), most of
it on rangeland and pastureland rather than
on cropland. Because of the high (75-90 per-
cent) water content of animal waste (6), the
cost of collecting and transporting it is high
relative to the price of an equivalent amount
of nitrogen in fertilizer at current prices.
With respect to the second question,
estimates of nitrogen loss from fertilizer
typically range from 30 to 50 percent or
more. The nitrogen, as nitrate, is leached
to groundwater, carried away in runoff, and
volatilized by denitrification. Losses of
nitrogen from animal wastes, however, ap-
pear to be high as well. CAST (6) cites the
1978 USDA study on use of organic wastes
as indicating that 63 percent of the nitrogen
in manure now returned to the land is lost
to volatilization and leaching, and that at
best this could be reduced to 45 percent.
According to CAST, this would increase the
available amount of nitrogen from collect-
ible manure from about 9 percent to 12 per-
cent of the amount now supplied in fertilizer.
The only source of organic material that
has much promise for replacing nitrogen fer-
tilizer on a significant scale over the next
decade or so is leguminous crops. This, of
course, is what alternative agriculture pro-
poses to do. Apart from whether these crops
can produce enough nitrogen to replace that
now available in fertilizer—an unsettled
question—the necessity of including these
crops in rotation with main crops is the
primary reason for the lower yields of the
latter per acre of land in the rotation. And
this yield penalty is a principal reason for
the conclusion of all the studies consulted
that wholesale conversion to alternative
agriculture would drive up the costs of
agricultural production, increase the amount
of land in crops, and have unfavorable
(except for farmers) macroeconomic conse-
quences.
Conclusions on large-scale comparisons.
On balance, we conclude that a wholesale
shift to alternative agriculture under current
conditions would have unfavorable macro-
economic consequences, but that these prob-
ably would be closer to those estimated by
Oelhaf (25) than to those by Olson and as-
sociates (26) and CAST (6). An important
reason for Oelhaf s lower estimate of the se-
verity of the cost increase and related con-
sequences is that he expects alternative ag-
riculture to impose a lower yield penalty.
Our reading of the literature suggests that
Oelhaf s estimate of the penalty is closer to
the mark than are the estimates of CAST
and, especially, of Olson and his associates.
Sustainability comparisons. We define a
sustainable agricultural system as one that
will indefinitely meet rising domestic and
foreign demand for food and fiber at con-
stant or declining real economic and envi-
ronmental costs of production. A principal
tenet of the alternative agriculture movement
is that the current U.S. agricultural system
is not sustainable in this sense. The reasons
are that the existing system (a) generates
enough erosion to seriously threaten the
long-term productivity of the soil; (b)
destroys useful biota in the soil through its
heavy use of inorganic fertilizer and pesti-
cides, again posing a threat to the soil's long-
term productivity; and (c) relies heavily on
fossil fuel sources of energy, which in time
will be exhausted.
Erosion and soil productivity. Studies of
the long-term effects of erosion on soil pro-
ductivity done with the Productivity Index
(PI) model, with the Erosion Productivity
Impact Calculator (EPIC) model, and with
regression analysis at Resources for the
Future (RFF) agree that continuation of
present rates of U.S. cropland erosion for
100 years would reduce crop yields at the
end of that period by, at most, 5 to 10 per-
cent from what they otherwise would be (8).
If technological advances increase yields
over that period at only half the annual rate
experienced over the last 40 years, the
negative yield effect of erosion would be off-
set several times over.
If USDA (33) is right in expecting the
amount of land in crops to decline over the
next 50 years, erosion will decline also,
probably proportionately more than the de-
cline in cropland because production will
tend to concentrate on less erodible land. In
this case, the long-term threat of erosion to
soil productivity would be even less than
presently estimated by PI, EPIC, and RFF.
Conventional systems and soil biota. The
evidence is insufficient to conclude that the
effects of conventional agricultural practices
on soil biota are destructive enough to
threaten the sustainability of U.S. agricul-
ture. Poincelot (30) asserts that there is a
"direct relationship" between organic mat-
ter in the soil and the population and distri-
bution of beneficial soil biota. This relation-
ship is generally accepted in the literature.
Oelhof (25) says it is also generally accepted
that with soil, climate, and other relevant
conditions the same organic farmers typical-
ly achieve higher organic content in their
soils than conventional farmers do.
It follows that the soils of organic farmers
are usually richer in soil biota than are the
soils of conventional farmers. It is not clear,
however, that the difference raises an issue
of long-term sustainability. It is extensively
documented (9) that badly eroded, biota-
impoverished soils can be restored to rich
fertility over a period of some years by
adopting management techniques—such as
those of alternative agriculture—that build
soil organic matter. The process takes time
and involves some expense, but it is not rare.
Consequently, even though conventional ag-
riculture severely reduces soil organic mat-
ter and related biota—which it may but does
not necessarily do—the losses need not be
permanent. If economic conditions favor it,
the soils can be restored. Restoration, of
course, costs something, but that is an issue
of the comparative economics of alternative
and conventional systems. It is not an issue
of long-run sustainability.
Reliance on fossil Juels. The nitrogen fer-
tilizer used in the United States is produced
from natural gas, and most pesticides are pe-
troleum-based. Because petroleum and nat-
ural gas are exhaustible resources, they will
someday become more expensive than they
are now, and eventually their price will be-
come so high as to exclude them from any
except the most high-value uses. Therefore,
their continued use by the existing agricul-
tural system would be inconsistent with the
earlier definition of long-term sustainability.
The issue, however, is one of timing. As
January-February 1990 37
-------
long as the cost of fossil fuels, taking ac-
count of the future opportunity cost of the
resource, is less than the cost of the alter-
natives, it is in the social interest to use fossil
fuels. As supplies are used up and their cost
rises, it will be in the social interest at some
point to switch to cheaper energy sources
and to invest in research to develop those
sources so that they are available when costs
of fossil fuels begin a long-term rise.
At that point, renewable sources of en-
ergy, such as those used in alternative agri-
culture, almost surely will become econom-
ically more important. One can argue, there-
fore, that to maintain the sustainability of
American agriculture into the indefinite fu-
ture a shift from the present system to some-
thing like alternative agriculture eventually
will be necessary. But "eventually" is not
now.
Conclusions on sustainability. The argu-
ment that American agriculture should shift
to the alternative system over the near term
because the existing system is not sus-
tainable is not well-supported. Soil erosion
under the existing system is not a serious
threat to long-term productivity. The ex-
isting system may reduce soil biota, in some
cases severely, relative to alternative agri-
culture, but there is no evidence that the
damage is permanent. Finally, the depend-
ence of the existing system on exhaustible
energy sources implies that the system even-
tually must be abandoned for one, such as
alternative agriculture, that relies mainly on
renewable energy sources. But the relative
prices of exhaustible and renewable energy
sources clearly indicate that "eventually" is
not now.
Environmental characteristics
Pesticides and water quality. Hallberg
(13) reported that studies of the presence of
pesticides in groundwater from routine use
are few compared to those of nitrates, but
that this is beginning to change. He cited a
study by Cohen and associates (5) in which
at least 17 pesticides were found in ground-
water in 23 states as a result of routine agri-
cultural use. The largest number of pesti-
cides was found in California, New York,
and Iowa, but this is probably because these
states engage in closer monitoring than
others (13). As monitoring increases in other
states, the number of pesticides found is ex-
pected to increase (73). The concentrations
of pesticides in groundwater resulting from
routine agricultural use are low, ranging in
most cases from 0.1 to 1.0 parts per million
(13). Hallberg cited evidence suggesting that
the concentrations may be increasing, but
this evidently is quite uncertain. Some in-
crease seems likely, however, because of the
increasing use of herbicides.
Most pesticides found in groundwater get
there by leaching through the soil. In areas
with karst-carbonate aquifer terrains, how-
ever, these contaminants can enter ground-
water directly through sinkholes and related
features, producing much higher concentra-
tions than those resulting from leaching (13).
Hallberg reported that these karst-carbonate
aquifers underlie extensive areas of agricul-
tural land throughout the United States.
Nielsen and Lee (24) analyzed the poten-
tial for pollution of groundwater by 38
pesticides recommended for inclusion in an
EPA survey (underway as of this writing) of
pesticides in groundwater. Combining in-
formation about county-level rates of use of
these pesticides with other information
about their tendency to leach to groundwater
and the "teachability" of soils in areas
where they are used, Nielsen and Lee
ranked counties by their potential for
groundwater contamination by these pes-
ticides. They found 361 counties with high
contamination potential and another 757
with medium potential.
Information about pesticide concentra-
tions in surface water is even more scarce
than that about groundwater. Where they
occur, however, the surface water concen-
trations tend to be higher than in ground-
water. The reason is that only highly soluble
pesticides leach to groundwater, whereas
less soluble compounds can be carried to
surface water by runoff and, in some cases,
sediment (13). Subsurface flow also can
carry pesticides in groundwater to surface
water.
For some people the presence of any
amount of pesticides in groundwater or sur-
face water is sufficient evidence of a serious
problem justifying public action to remove
the offending material and to prevent its fur-
ther use. But as the title of a recent book,
The Dose Makes the Poison (27), suggests,
not all concentrations of pesticides are
equally threatening and some may not be
threatening at all. Clark and associates (4)
report that mutagenic, carcinogenic, and ter-
atogenic effects of pesticides have been doc-
umented only in cases of relatively high
exposure.
Occurrences of high pesticide concentra-
tions in water supplies appear to be fairly
infrequent and localized, and by the time
water reaches a customer tap, pesticide con-
centrations are seldom, if ever, at levels
thought to produce health effects. But much
remains unknown about long-term health
effects of even small concentrations of pes-
ticides (4), and little is known about syn-
ergistic effects among various pesticides and
between pesticides and other substances.
This discussion suggests that if one word
can be used to describe the current situa-
tion about pesticides and water quality, it is
uncertainty—uncertainty about the concen-
trations of these materials in groundwater
and surface water and uncertainty about the
significance of the concentrations for hu-
man, animal, and plant health. Thus, it is
impossible to judge to what extent alterna-
tive agriculture's rejection, of pesticides
would generate water quality benefits to off-
set the higher economic costs of these sys-
tems relative to conventional agriculture.
Some offset seems likely, however.
Pesticide residues on food. The literature
presents little documented evidence that
pesticide residues on food are in fact a seri-
ous threat to human health. A 1987 report
by the National Research Council (NRC)
estimated that pesticide residues in food con-
sumed, by Americans would increase the
probability of contracting cancer over a
70-year lifetime from 25 to 25.1 percent, an
increase of 0.4 percent. The estimate is low
by comparison with other health risks in
American society. It should be noted, how-
ever, that the NRC's estimate refers only to
cancer risks from pesticide residues in food.
Other risks, such as birth defects, were out-
side the purview of the study.
The CAST report (6) cited an earlier NRC
study :of the acute toxicity of pesticide
residues in food. This study found that U.S.
per-capita consumption of these residues
was about 40 milligrams, more than half be-
ing pesticides no longer in use at that time.
The aggregate acute toxicity of these resi-
dues was roughly equivalent to the acute tox-
icity of one aspirin or one cup of coffee. But
the CAST report noted that longer term ef-
fects Of chronic exposure to such small
amounts of pesticides had not been resolved
satisfactorily by the available scientific evi-
dence. This uncertainty is still unresolved.
Handling pesticides. Pimentel and
associates (29) estimated deaths from pes-
ticides by accident, homicide, and suicide
to have been several hundred per year in the
1970s.,They estimated illnesses from pesti-
cide poisoning to be in the tens of thousands.
These numbers are subject to considerable
error, as the researchers recognized, because
state reporting of the necessary data is some-
times spotty, and the data about accidents
are inherently difficult to collect. Nonethe-
less, the human and economic cost of pesti-
cide poisoning of farmers, their families, and
their hjred workers appears to be significant.
The fact that alternative agriculture would
drastically reduce, if not eliminate, this cost
would seem to be its most important envi-
ronmental advantage related to conventional
agriculture.
Nutrients. Nitrogen and phosphorus in
runoff and carried by sediment contribute
38 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
to eutrophication of surface water bodies,
and nitrogen in the form of nitrate is leached
to groundwater, where it may pose a threat
to human and animal health. Oelhaf (25)
stated that "heavy manuring causes the same
nitrate problems as heavy chemical applica-
tions." And CAST (6) asserted that the ni-
trate in fertilizer is more readily available
to the crop than that in manure or legumi-
nous crops. Consequently, the amount of the
nutrient remaining in the soil after harvest
is greater with these sources, suggesting that
they may contribute more to nitrate pollu-
tion than does inorganic nitrogen fertilizer.
Thus, the potential for nitrate damage to
water quality appears to be about the same
for alternative and conventional agricultural
systems. Whether the two systems differ in
fact in the amount of damage is unknown.
The Papendick and associates' report (28)
asserted that "organic farmers are apparently
able to control availability and release of
nitrogen through various techniques of soil
management," but went on to state that
"there are little or no hard data available on
leaching loss of nitrates on organic farms."
It appears that any environmental benefits
of alternative agriculture with respect to
reduced nitrate pollution of groundwater and
surface water are not substantial enough to
offset the economic disadvantages of the
system.
On sloping, erodible soils, alternative
agriculture generally will produce much less
erosion than conventional agriculture.
Because much of the phosphorus delivered
to surface water is carried by sediment, the
erosion-reducing characteristics of alter-
native agriculture ought to give the system
a potential advantage relative to conventional
agriculture in reducing eutrophication of
lakes and reservoirs where phosphorus is the
limiting nutrient. The importance of this as
an offset to the economic disadvantages of
the alternative system, however, is difficult
to judge given the lack of information about
the amount of eutrophication damage, the
contribution of agricultural sources of phos-
phorus to it, and the effect of alternative ag-
riculture in reducing the damage.
Sediment. The Clark and associates' esti-
mates (4), expressed in 1985 prices (8), in-
dicated that sediment damage to surface
water quality costs the nation $4 billion to
$16 billion annually. Clark and associates es-
timated that cropland erosion is responsible
for about a third of this damage. The ero-
sion-reducing characteristics of alternative
agriculture on sloping, erodible land ought
to give it a clear advantage over conventional
agriculture in reducing these damages. This
is subject to the caveat that the relationship
between reduction of erosion on the land and
reduction in sediment damage downstream
a :
Adrian Achterman
often is unclear (8).
Moreover, alternative agriculture is not the
. only system with this advantage. On sloping,
erodible land, conservation tillage—defined
as any tillage system that leaves at least 30
percent of the previous crop's residue on the
soil surface after spring planting—reduces
erosion 50 to 90 percent relative to conven-
tional tillage (7). But conservation tillage as
typically practiced relies on herbicides at
least as much as, and often more than, con-
ventional tillage. Conservation tillage is used
on roughly a third of the nation's crop-
land—far more land than is devoted to alter-
native agriculture, primarily because it is
more economically competitive than alter-
native agriculture. Thus, conservation tillage
appears to offer a more economical alter-
native for reducing sediment damage than
does alternative agriculture. The benefits of
conservation tillage in reduced sediment
damage, however, could be bought at the
price of increased herbicide damage—a
price alternative agriculture does not have
to pay.
Animal habitat. The literature reviewed
gives contradictory evidence on the effects
of conventional agriculture and alternative
agriculture on animal habitat. Writing about
the South, Healy (15) asserted that "on bal-
ance, the land use changes that have taken
place in the South since about 1935 probably
have improved carrying capacity for many
game species by creating a more diverse
local habitat." Healy was talking about more
Wildlife benefits derived from alternative
practices are a strong argument for the
social value of such practices.
than crop production; however, the period
of which he writes encompasses that in
which crop production in the South shifted
to the high-energy and chemical-based
system we now call conventional agriculture.
Cacek (3) considered the effects of con-
ventional agriculture on wildlife habitat in
12 midwestern states and came to a much
less favorable conclusion than Healy did
with respect to the South. Cacek cited a
study indicating that from the mid-1950s to
the mid-1970s wildlife populations in these
states declined 40 to 80 percent. Cacek at-
tributed these declines to transformation of
crop production in this period, particularly
the dramatic increase in the use of agricul-
tural chemicals, a decrease in crop diversi-
ty, and the elimination of fence rows as
farmers expanded to take advantage of larger
equipment. The reduction in acreage in set-
aside programs also was a factor. Cacek also
recounted the advantages of alternative agri-
culture in improving animal habitat, partic-
ularly by providing nesting places for birds
and eliminating the danger of pesticide
poisoning.
USDA projects a decline of tens of mil-
lions of acres in crops over the next 50 years
(33). Much of this land will shift to a varie-
ty of urban and other nonagricultural uses,
almost surely with unfavorable habitat con-
sequences. Habitat on the land that shifts out
January-February 1990 39
-------
of crops but remains in some low-value use
in agriculture, however, should improve.
What the net habitat effect of these changes
in land use would be is not clear from the
information provided by USDA.
For a given amount of crop and animal
output, alternative agriculture uses more
land than conventional agriculture does.
Consequently, a large-scale shift to alter-
native agriculture almost certainly would
hold more land in agriculture than the
USDA projections indicate, which should
result in more and better animal habitat than
the USDA projections imply. Not only
would the shift of land out of agriculture be
less than in the USDA projections, but
habitat on all land devoted to crop produc-
tion would be improved, if Cacek (3) is right
about the relative habitat benefits of alter-
native agriculture.
This is a strong argument for the social
value of alternative agriculture relative to
conventional agriculture. Healy's work (75)
and that of various authors cited by Decker
and Goff (II) indicate that many people in
the United States place a high value on wild-
life, both as hunters and as "nonconsump-
tive users," such as bird watchers. With con-
tinued growth in population and income over
the next 50 years, demand for these various
uses of wildlife is sure to grow, probably
substantially. The benefits of alternative ag-
riculture relative to those of conventional
agriculture in providing wildlife habitat
could be expected to grow correspondingly.
Conclusions on environmental com-
parisons. By eliminating the use of pesti-
cides, alternative agriculture probably would
provide some positive benefit in improved
water quality relative to conventional agri-
- culture; Moreover, because alternative ag-
riculture reduces erosion on sloping and
more erodible land, it probably has some
advantage in reducing phosphorus deliveries
to lakes and reservoirs, although informa-
tion is insufficient to judge the importance
of this advantage. The evidence suggests,
however, that there is little difference be-
tween alternative agriculture and conven-
tional agriculture with respect to nitrate pol-
lution of groundwater and surface water.
The erosion reduction advantage might be
significant, however, in reducing sediment
damage. Evidence suggests that these dam-
LOW-INPUT AGRICULTURE: OVERCOMING THE IMPEDIMENTS
In 1987, the Freshwater Foundation spon-
sored a conference titled "Agricultural Chem-
icals and Groundwater Protection: Emerging
Management and Policy." There were two
outcomes from this conference. One was the
results of a questionnaire sent out to confer-
ence preregistranis. The second was a series
of recommendations based on the written
and verbal comments of conference at-
tendees.
Respondents to the questionnaire repre-
sented virtually every group that has an in-
terest in agriculture and groundwater: gov-
ernment agency people, university and ex-
tension personnel, farmers, farmer organiza-
tions, the agrichemical industry, public
health officials, nonprofit and environmental
groups, business and industry, researchers,
testing fiims, legislators, and the media.
Respondents were asked to rank the effect
of the following forces that drive agrichem-
ical use: advertising, the economics of stay-
ing in business, government policies, market
pricing, and tradition. Sixty-two percent of
the respondents identified the economics of
staying in business as the greatest force driv-
ing agriehemical use, 11 percent ranked ad-
vertising as the greatest force, another 11 per-
cent ranked tradition, 8 percent ranked gov-
ernment policies, and nearly 3 percent
ranked market pricing.
Respondents also were asked whether suf-
ficient information was available to allow for
effective management of agrichemicals and
protection of groundwater. The response was
overwhelming: 20 percent said "yes," and
SO percent said "no."
To assess the adequacy of the information-
sharing process, respondents were asked
whether the right information was getting to
the right people. Again, the response was
definitive: 9 percent said "yes," 91 percent
said "no." In a follow-up question, respon-
dents said that breakdowns in the informa-
tion-sharing process occurred between vir-
tually every possible set of groups: between
the agrichemical industry and the user, be-
tween local entities and the farmer, between
state and local entities, and between federal
and state entities.
Respondents were asked to identify the
greatest constraint to effective management
of agrichemicals and protection of ground-
water. They identified three as being almost
equal: 23 percent named lack of incentives
to change current practices, 23 percent
named inadequate information, and 20 per-
cent named potential loss of income.
Another 11 percent indicated inadequate
communication of information, nearly 9 per-
cent indicated conflicting information, nearly
5 percent indicated inadequate information
sources, 2 percent indicated peer pressure,
and 0.5 percent indicated lack of time.
When asked to identify who should bear
primary responsibility for protecting ground-
water from agrichemical contamination, 30
percent of the respondents suggested it
should be a partnership among various gov-
ernmental agencies, fanners and fanner or-
ganizations, the agrichemical industry, and
society as a whole. Less than 19 percent sug-
gested that the responsibility fell to the pro-
ducers or users as an individual group, 10
percent identified federal government agen-
cies as the responsible group, another 9 per-
cent indicated a partnership of users and pro-
ducers should be responsible, and other re-
spondents mentioned various other groups.
Finally, respondents were asked to iden-
tify the greatest immediate need regarding
agrichemical management and protection of
groundwater. Fifty percent of the respon-
dents said more information and better in-
formation dissemination were needed. Spec-
ified needs included better, clearer, more
precise, unbiased information; more scien-
tific research and an increased data base; and
better dissemination and communication of
information.
Conference attendees were asked to re-
spond both verbally and in writing to a
variety of issues. A list of 10 recommenda-
tions was compiled from these extensive
responses. Of these, eight seem particular-
ly appropriate in talking about low-input,
sustainable agriculture and its potential for
protecting water quality:
>• An immediate need exists on behalf of
all agencies and organizations, but particu-
larly fanners, for information on agrichem-
icals and their impact on groundwater quality
and public health.
>• Farmers need practical, demonstrable,
best management practices regarding agri-
chemical use and groundwater protection.
>• The institutional barriers built into
bank loans and government programs that
encourage unnecessary or excessive agri-
chemical use need to be eliminated.
>• Farmers need economic incentives to
change current practices that rely on heavy
use of agrichemicals where underlying
groundwater supplies are at risk.
*• Fopd production and commodities pro-
grams should be brought into harmony with
conservation and environmental programs.
>• Information and policies related to the
proper disposal of pesticides and pesticide
containers are needed.
>• Funding at all levels—federal, state,
local, and private—is needed to develop ef-
fective groundwater management plans and
policies.
^- Cooperation and coordination are
needed at all levels of government as well
as between the public and private sectors to
effectively manage the impact of agrichem-
icals on groundwater.—Linda Schroeder,
formerly manager of publications and con-
ferences, Freshwater Foundation, now a
private consultant, Delano, Minnesota,
speaking at the conference "The Promise of
Low-Input Agriculture: A Search for Sus-
tainability and Profitability."
40 Journal ol Soil and Water Conservation
-------
ages now amount to billions of dollars each
year.
The threat to human health of pesticide
residues in food evidently is small. A whole-
sale shift to alternative agriculture, however,
likely would yield substantial benefits in
reduced deaths and illnesses stemming from
pesticide application.
By holding more land in agriculture than
would occur with conventional agriculture
and by providing a more diverse habitat on
that land, alternative systems likely would
yield considerably greater benefits in im-
proved animal habitat than the conventional
system.
The extent to which these environmental
benefits of alternative agriculture would off-
set their economic disadvantages is difficult
to judge. But the offset—particularly that
stemming from reduced pesticide deaths and
illnesses and from habitat improvement—
is probably large enough to warrant serious
consideration of policies to stimulate greater
farmer interest in alternative systems.
Policy implications
For the last 40 years agricultural research
in the United States has been aimed at devel-
oping systems of increasing economic pro-
ductivity. Systems that offered gains in envi-
ronmental benefits only at some sacrifice of
economic productivity were relatively neg-
lected. Consequently, our conclusion that
alternative agriculture suffers a significant
economic disadvantage relative to conven-
tional agriculture is not surprising. But the
conclusion that alternative agriculture con-
veys environmental benefits relative to con-
ventional agriculture suggests that policy-
makers should begin to give more attention
to the development of alternative agriculture
than they have heretofore. Although a whole-
sale shift to alternative systems over the next
decade or so could not be justified, policies
to put more resources into research on the
comparative economic and environmental
characteristics of alternative and conventional
agriculture deserves serious consideration.
The recent National Academy of Sciences
report argued that federal government com-
modity price and income support programs
are a barrier to widespread adoption of alter-
native agriculture (24). Under these pro-
grams, farmers receive payments according
to how much "base acreage" they have in
program crops, principally corn, wheat, and
cotton. If farmers adopt a rotational system
typical of alternative agriculture, they lose
base acreage, hence they sacrifice income
support payments. The importance of this
barrier to adoption of alternative agriculture
is unknown, but we believe it carries some
weight. Research on this issue would con-
tribute to the policy discussion of how to en-
courage wider adoption of alternative agri-
culture.
With respect to environmental character-
istics, policymakers should support collec-
tion and analysis of data on pesticide use and
its consequences for environmental quality.
With respect to economics, research on the
causes of the yield penalty that alternative
agriculture now suffers should have high pri-
ority. Weed control with substantially re-
duced use of herbicides should be the pri-
mary initial target. The objective should be
a system that is more competitive econom-
ically with the conventional system while
significantly less dependent on herbicides.
If this research succeeds, farmers will have
increasing economic incentives to adopt al-
ternative agriculture, and the system will
spread. Farmers will gain economically, and
society in general will reap gains in envi-
ronmental improvement.
The animal habitat benefits of alternative
agriculture relative to conventional agricul-
ture also deserve additional research atten-
tion. Analytical techniques have been devel-
oped to estimate unpriced benefits of this.
general sort, but the techniques have not
been brought systematically to bear on the
study of the relative habitat benefits of the
two contending agricultural systems. If, in
fact, alternative agriculture is particularly
favored in this respect and if the growing
future demand for wildlife services will
strengthen that advantage even more, the
payoff to research along this line should be
high in promoting the best use of the nation's
resources.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Berardi, G. M. 1978. Organic and conventional
wheat production: Examination of energy and
economics. Agro-Ecosystems 4: 367-376.
2. Blobaum, Roger. 1983. Barriers to conversion
to organic farming practices in the midwestern
United States. In W. Lockeretz [ed.] En-
vironmentally Sound Agriculture. Praeger, New
York, N.Y.
3. Cacek, T. 1985. Impacts of organic farming and
reduced tillage on fish and wildlife. In Thomas
C. Edens, Cynthia Fridgen, and Susan L. Bat-
tenfield [eds.] Sustainable Agriculture and In-
tegrated Farming Systems. Mich. State Univ.
Press, East Lansing.
4. Clark, E. II., J. Haverkamp, and W. Chapman.
1985. Eroding soils: The off-farm impacts. The
Cons. Found., Washington, D.C.
5. Cohen, S., C. Eiden, and M. Lorber. 1986.
Monitoring ground water for pesticides. In W.
Garner and associates [eds.] Evaluation of
Pesticides in Ground Water. Symp. Series 315.
Am. Chem. Soc., New York, N.Y.
6. Council for Agricultural Science and Technol-
ogy. 1980. Organic and conventional farming
compared. Rpt. no. 84. Ames, Iowa.
7. Crosson, P. 1981. Conventional tillage and con-
servation tillage: A comparative assessment. Soil
Cons. Soc. of Am., Ankeny, Iowa.
8. Crosson, P. 1986. Soil erosion and policy issues.
In T. Phipps, P. Crosson, and K. Price [eds.]
Agriculture and the Environment. Resources for
the Future, Washington, D.C.
9. Crosson, P., and A. Stout. 1983. Productivity
effects of cropland erosion in the United States.
Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
10. Dabbert, Stephen, and Patrick Madden. 1986.
The transition to organic agriculture: A multi-
year simulation model of a Pennsylvania farm.
Am. J. Alternative Agr. 1(3).
11. Decker, D., and G. Goff. 1987. Valuing wildlife:
Economic and social perspectives. Westview
Press, Boulder, Colo.
12. Fawcett, R. S. 1983. Control of weeds. In R. B.
Dahlgren [ed.] Proceedings of Management
Alternatives for Biological Farming Workshop.
Iowa State Univ., Ames.
13. Hallberg, George R. 1987. Agricultural chem-
nicals in ground water: Extent and implications.
Am. J. Alternative Agr. 2(1).
14. Harwood, Richard R. 1984. Organic farming
research at the Rodale Research Center. In
Organic Farming: Current Technology and Its
Role in a Sustainable Agriculture. Am. Soc.
Agron., Madison, Wise.
15. Healy, R. 1985. Competition for land in the
American south. The Cons. Found., Washing-
ton, D.C.
16. Helmers, Glenn A., Michael R. Langemeier,
and Joseph Atwood. 1986. An economic analysis
of alternative cropping systems for east-central
Nebraska. Am. J. Alternative Agr. 1(4).
17. James, Sidney C 1983. Economic consequences
of biological farming. In R. B. Dahlgren [ed.]
Proc., Management Alternatives for Biological
Farming Workshop. Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit,
Iowa State Univ., Ames.
18. Lockeretz, W. 1980. Maize yields and soil
nutrient levels with and without pesticides and
standard commercial fertilizers. Agron. J. 72:
65-72.
19. Lockeretz, W, et al. 1976. Organic and conven-
tional crop production in the Corn Belt: A com-
parison of economic performance and energy use
for selected farms. Center for Biol. of Nat. Sys.,
Washington Univ., St. Louis, Mo.
20. Lockeretz, William, et al. 1978. Field crop pro-
duction on organic farms in the Midwest. J. Soil
and Water Cons. 33(3): 130-134.
21. Lockeretz, William, et al. 1981. Organic farm-
ing in the Com Belt. Science 211: 540-547.
22. Lockeretz, William, etal. 1984. Comparison of
organic and conventional farming in the Corn
Belt. In D. F. Bezdicek and associates [eds.]
Organic Farming: Current Technology and its
Role in a Sustainable Agriculture. Am. Soc.
Agron., Madison, Wise.
23. National Academy of Sciences. 1989. Alternative
Agriculture. Nat. Academy Press, Washington
D.C. 5
24. Nielsen, E., and L. Lee. 1987. The magnitude
and costs of groundwater contamination from
agricultural chemicals. AERno. 576. U.S. Dept.
Agr., Washington, D.C.
25. Oelhaf, Robert C. 1978. Organic agriculture.
Allanheld, Osmun & Co., Montclair, N.J.
26. Olson, Kent D., James Langley, and Earl O.
Heady. 1982. Widespread adoption of organic
farming practices: Estimated impacts on U.S.
agriculture. J. Soil and Water Cons. 37(1): 41-45.
27. Ottoboni, M. 1984. The Dose Makes the Poison.
Vicente Books, Berkeley, Calif.
28. Papendick, R. Z. Elliot and J. Power. 1987.
Alternative production systems to reduce nitrates
in groundwater. Am. J. Alternative Agr. 2(1):
19-24.
29. Pimentel, D., et al. 1980. Environmental and
social costs of pesticides: A preliminary assess-
ment. OIKOS 34(2).
30. Poincelot, Raymond P. 1986. Toward a more sus-
tainable agriculture. AVI Publ., Westport, Conn
241 pp. ^
31. Power, J. R, and J. W. Doran. 1984. Nitrogen
use in organic farming. In Nitrogen in Crop Pro-
duction. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wise.
32. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. Report
and recommendations on organic agriculture.
620-20-3641. Study Team on Organic Farming,
Washington, D.C.
33. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1987. The sec-
ond RCA appraisal: Review draft. Washington
D.C. 6
January-February 1990 41
-------
Low-input agriculture
and soil conservation
Conservation tillage, which minimizes
soil disturbance and maintains a
cover of crop residue on the soil sur-
face, has opened exciting opportunities for
controlling soil erosion without expensive
structural conservation measures. As origi-
nally conceived, conservation tillage, to a
large extent, substituted chemicals for tillage
practices.
Low-input farming systems, on the other
hand, seek to minimize the use of "pur-
chased inputs," mainly the use of pesticides
and chemical fertilizers, and, consequent-
ly, may be thought to require more tillage
and mechanical weed control than does
conservation tillage. Low-input agriculture,
therefore, may be considered incompatible
with the most modern and, in many places,
most effective soil conservation technology.
I was keenly aware of this conflict and,
a few years ago, considered it inevitable. I
believe now that low-input farming and soil
conservation are not only compatible but ac-
tually mutually supportive. The successful
marriage of the two approaches, however,
will require a willingness to cooperate and,
often, a willingness to change long-held
beliefs for both soil conservationists and
low-input farmers.
Some effective systems
Dick Thompson, the eminent practitioner
of low-input farming in Boone County,
Iowa, has convinced me that ways can be
found to resolve the apparent contradiction
between the two farming systems. Thomp-
son uses a ridge-till system in which he
keeps a cover of plants or crop residue or
even weeds on the soil during most of the
year and, by doing so, effectively minimizes
erosion. I also suspect, although I have no
proof, that he has made his soils inherently
less credible than they were before. We can
use him as evidence that low-input systems
can be fully compatible with soil conserva-
tion objectives.
Klaus W. Flach is a senior research scholar in the
Agronomy Department, Colorado State University,
fort Collins, 80S23; he formerly HVS the special
assistant Jar science and technology with the Soil
Consen-ation Senice, U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, IKwWngf0n.ee TJtts paper is based on FJacli's
presentation at the conference "TJie Promise ofLo\v-
Input Agriculture: A Search for Sustainability and
Profitability."
By Klaus W. Flach
Another convincing argument for the
basic compatibility of low-input and soil
conservation practices was made by Mary
Jackson, who compared a very traditional
low-input system, an Amish farm in Holmes
County, Ohio, with an adjacent farm that
uses modern no-till technology (3*). The
Amish farm she studied has convincingly
shown little soil erosion, although conven-
tional application of the universal soil loss
equation (USLE) suggests erosion rates be-
tween 7 and 15 tons per acre. She found that
rotations that include legumes and liberal
manure applications, combined with the use
of horses rather than heavy tractors, reduced
soil compaction and greatly improved soil
quality on the Amish farm.
Through this management system, organic
matter content and, consequently, aggregate
stability are increased and bulk densities are
decreased, with the result that water infiltra-
tion rates in cornfields on the Amish farm
were about seven tunes as high as those on
the same soil under conventional no-till.
There is little runoff and little erosion. She
also pointed out that in the rotation used on
the Amish farm the soil was left bare for
only three and one-half months in a four-.
year rotation.
I believe that Jackson has an important
message for all soil conservationists and for
all formers. In fairness, it should also be said
that her findings do not necessarily apply
to all Amish farms.
Critical conservation factors
As shown in the previous examples, low-
input farming systems can be effective con-
servation systems because they provide soil
cover during most of the year and because
they can make better soils that have less
runoff and more resistance to erosion.
Through their greater use of rotations and
green manure crops, low-input systems are
likely to provide cover during a greater part
of the year than conventional farming and
especially mono-cropping systems. This is
rather obvious, and I will not belabor the
point. It is important, of course, that we be
able to identify critical periods of the year
when cover on the soil is essential and to
manage the land accordingly.
We have opportunities to make better soils
that are more resistant to erosion than, spils
that have been conventionally managed.
Perhaps we can make them more resistant
to erosion than they ever were. Low-input
systems, because of their use of legumes and
other high-residue crops in their rotations
and their emphasis on manure as a source
of soil fertility, can do that.
Early soil conservationists had a more
holistic approach to soil conservation than,
we have today. They not only wanted to con-
serve but also to repair the damages of the
past through practices that increased the
organic matter content in the soil. Later
generations of soil conservationists concen-
trated more on su,ch things as soil Iqss and
soil eros.ion equations, and opportunities to
improve the quality of surface soil were
pretty much ignored. The soil credibility
factor, K, of the USLE became a constant
for individual kinds of soil, without any con-
sideration that we may change K through
better management.
The second chief of the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS), Dr. Robert S. Salter, for ex-
ample, did some fine work before he came:
to SCS in documenting the influence of cer-
tain crops and manure on soil organic mat-
ter (&). He developed "productivity indices"
for eaph crop (7). Some modern work in
Wisconsin that shows a close relationship
between organic matter content and poten-
tial productivity proves him right. Actual-
ly, as a very young scientist, I checked
Sailer's work and found that his indexes
predicted the organic matter content of
upstate New York; soils almost perfectly.
As a consequence of our rather narrow
outlook on soil conservation, research on
controlling soil erosion though improving
soil quality almost disappeared. It came
back only when experiments on conserva-.
tion tillage in the 1970s and 1980s showed
that conservation tillage did more than just
protect the soil from the impact of rain,
drops; it also reduced runoff. In addition,
the benefits of conservation tillage increased
with time. Obviously, something was hap-
pening to the soil that could not be explained
through the mechanical effects of crop
residues alone.
In one experiment at Coshocton, Ohio,
(2), runoff from a watershed that had been
in no-till corn for 15 years was 1.6 milli-
meters per year, whereas an adjacent, con-
ventipnally tUled watershed had 100,times as,
42 Journal of Soli and Water Conservation
-------
much runoff, 177 millimeters. We do not
know to what extent the changes in Infiltra-
tion and erosivity were a direct effect of the
increased organic matter level and could
have been achieved with practices other than
no-till that would have increased organic
matter similarly. Certainly, a large part of
the credit must go to soil fauna, mostly
earthworms, that in undisturbed soil produce
large and continuous pores that are ideal
conduits for water. But low-input farming
systems other than no-till, like the ones used
by Dick Thompson or by Amish farmers,
may produce the same liberal supply of food
and the cover during much of the year that
encourages earthworms. Unfortunately, hard
evidence for this view is lacking at this time.
In a number of experiments at Watkins-
ville, Georgia (4), all on similar soils, dou-
ble-cropping of soybeans with crimson clo-
ver during the winter and no-till nearly
doubled the organic matter content and
restored soybean yields in a severely erod-
ed soil to those of its slightly eroded
equivalent. In related experiments, a cover
crop during the winter reduced erosion to
1.3 tons per acre from 12 tons per acre with-
out the cover crop. In these experiments,
erosion on plots under conventional tillage
also was. greatly reduced, suggesting that a
cover crop during winter and changes in soil
properties were responsible for much of the
apparent improvement.
The experiments at Coshocton and the
ones at Watkinsville used fertilizers and
pesticides. Nevertheless, we can say with,
some confidence that they show the poten-
tial for reducing erosion under management
systems that provide cover during critical
periods and for improving infiltration and,
consequently, reducing erosion if liberal
amounts of organic materials are returned
to the soil.
New technology for new tasks
The development of conservation systems
appropriate for low-input agriculture will re-
quire more flexible conservation planning
than has been possible in the past. The tools
for doing this are being developed. Scien-
tists of the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS), in close cooperation with specialists
in SCS, the Forest Service, and the Bureau
of Land Management, are developing new
models that not only will predict soil ero-
sion more accurately but also will allow
greater flexibility in developing conserva-
tion systems (/). The models will be simu-
lating the actual erosion processes, not gross
erosion as the current models do, and will
be driven by synthetic "weather generators"
that simulate long-term weather patterns for
individual locations on a day-by-day basis.
The water erosion model, WEPP (Water
Erosion Prediction Project), for example,
will model interrill or splash erosion sepa-
rately from soil detachment by rill erosion.
The soil conservationist then will be able to
tailor conservation practices to the dominant
erosion processes. The daily time step in
erosion prediction will identify when dur-
ing the year critical erosion events are like-
ly to occur so that timing the soil manage-
ment steps and planting the cover crops can
be related to the likelihood of such events.
This capability will be particularly impor-
tant in conservation plans for low-input ag-
riculture and will result in more realistic
assessments of erosion for such systems.
The soil erodibility factors (K) for water
erosion should reflect management history
much more than they do now. At this time
the experimental basis for such adjustments
is inadequate, but when it is developed,
management history can be incorporated for
an adjusted K factor.
Managing the soil-crop system
Traditional farm management has em-
phasized crop management for maximum,
return, which often has been equated with:
maximum yield. Soil conservation usually
has been considered an add-on. The farm
was planned for production, and soil con-
servation was planned around this produc-
tion system. This, of course, has not always
been so. Before the ready availability of
commercial fertilizers and pesticides, rota-
tions and mixes of livestock and crops were
essential for maintaining the viability of the
soil-crop system. Basically, low-input farmr-
ing means going back to managing the soil-
crop system as an integrated system.
We do not fully understand this system
yet, but we are making progress. For exam-
ple, we understand now that phosphorus is
Soil conservation practices
can contribute to sustainable
agricultural and vice versa.
- ^K--:I' '^''^'^i^^^c^
if^-'M*^^-^^
January-February 199Q 43.
-------
essential for the formation of stable organic
matter in the soil, and we will have to supply
the soil with phosphorus if it is naturally
deficient. Likewise, viable low-input con-
servation farming systems require an ade-
quate supply of plant residues from the
above- and below-ground parts of the plant
to produce the organic materials needed to
keep the soil from eroding and to improve
its physical properties.
Therefore, going back to managing the
integrated soil-crop system should not
mean going back to farming the way it was
done 100 years ago. Rather, we should take
advantage of everything modem science and
technology have to offer, including chemi-
cal fertilizers and pesticides, in ways that
are environmentally and ecologically re-
sponsible.
Low-input and soil conservation
I postulated that the objectives of low-
input agriculture and soil conservation can
be compatible and supplementary. I have
provided some evidence—almost none of it
direct and conclusive. I have documented
that the organic matter content of soils can
be increased and that management practices
that increase organic matter also increase
infiltration; reduce runoff; and, consequent-
ly, are likely to decrease erosion. I have im-
plied—and I am not the first to do so—that
higher organic matter levels in soils are
desirable, but I have no direct evidence that
organic matter by itself makes soil better.
Obviously, much more research on the im-
pact of cropping systems on the quality of
soil is needed. Such research must be con-
ducted over long periods. It is, therefore, ex-
pensive and, without specific encourage-
ment, will not be done.
Nevertheless, I believe that soil conser-
vationists should seek to improve rather than
just to conserve soil. If we stop at conserv-
ing, we will not be able to feed future gen-
erations. Bob Rodale has been calling for
regeneration. I agree with him, but in many
places we can do better than merely regen-
erate. The surface of the soil is its most
critical part for plant growth and for soil
protection. We obviously can damage it
more than any other part, but I believe we
also can improve it more. Hence, efforts to
improve its quality should be given equal or
more than equal weight in controlling soil
erosion. If that is done, there will be no dif-
ficulties in acknowledging the contribution
that low-input farming can make to soil
conservation.
Surface soils can be improved only if we
use all that modern science and technology
have to offer. Our soils are too important to
be sacrificed to dogmatic beliefs.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Anonymous. 1987. Compilation of water erosion
prediction project (WEPP) papers. Am. Soc. Agr.
Eng., St. Joseph, Mich.
2. Edwards, W. M., M. J.. Shipitalo, and L. D.
Norton. 1988. Contribution of macroporosity to
infiltration into a continuous corn no-till water-
shed: Implications for contaminant movement. J.
Contam. Hydrol. 3: 193-205.
3. Jackson, Mary. 1988. Amish agriculture and no-
till: The hazards of applying the USLE to unusual
farms. J. Soil and Water Cons. 43: 483-486.
4. Langdale, G. W., W. L. Hargrove, and J. Giddens.
1984i Residue management in double-crop con-
servation tillage systems. Agron. J. 76: 689-694.
5. Mills, W. C., A. W. Thomas, and G. W.
Langdale. 1986. Estimating soil loss probabilities
for Southern Piedmont cropping-tillage systems.
Trans., ASAE 29: 948-955.
6. Salter, R. M., and T. C. Green. 1933. Factors
affecting the accumulation and loss of nitrogen
and organic matter in cropped soils. J. Am. Soc.
Agron. 25: 622-630.
7. Salter, R. M., R. D. Lewis, and J. A. Slipher.
1936. Our heritage the soil. Bull. 175. Agr. Ext.
Serv., Ohio State Univ., Columbus. D.
RECREATION AND LISA: PARTNERS IN CREATIVE STEWARDSHIP
The very nature of low-input, sustainable
agriculture has led to unanimous disagree-
ment on what the term means. There are
probably no two people in any group that can
agree on a definition. In my opinion, sus-
tainable agriculture is an agricultural activity
that uses the best products and procedures
to increase cash returns to the producer while
maintaining or improving the natural re-
sources. The ways of achieving sustainable
agriculture are not new. Most practices have
been around for decades. The challenge is
to be creative. Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) employees working with producers
need to identify farming and ranching sys-
tems that meet landowner's objectives while
providing quality stewardship of the environ-
ment.
One program activity that received sub-
stantial support from SCS during the 1960s
and 1970s was recreation. SCS concern for
recreation was de-emphasized beginning in
the 1980s, when emphasis shifted to such
agency missions as the 1985 Food Security
Act (FSA) and water quality. Today, some
SCS employees overlook recreation as a po-
tential complementary land use. Take FSA,
for example. Recreational hunting might be
the most appropriate use on a specific area
of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
land. A water quality project will definitely
benefit from improved fishing, better swim-
ming and boating conditions, or other en-
hanced, water-related recreational, activities.
Incorporation of recreational activities into
sustainable agriculture offers private land-
owners a unique opportunity to turn a mar-
ginal or failing operation into a profitable
venture. There are many examples of suc-
cessful operations across the country that
take advantage of recreational opportunities.
"U-pick" farms are one example. Urban res-
idents pile into the family car for a leisurely
drive into a rural setting to harvest their im-
pression of the perfect edibles: peas, corn,
strawberries, blueberries, cherries, water
chestnuts, okra, tomatoes, etc. The producer
complements this activity by providing a
shaded picnic area where the family can
round out the day's recreational experience.
A similar type of recreational opportunity
is the "cut-your-own" Christmas tree farm.
Again, urbanites head for the rural areas to
select their concept of the perfect holiday
tree: scotch pine, blue spruce, Douglas-fir,
Noble fir, etc. All are accessible on foot or
perhaps by a unique means of transportation,
such as toy train, hay wagon, sled, or antique
truck, to complete the recreational outing.
A fishing pond is a desirable land use. A
small body of water in a picturesque setting
is stocked with hungry trout, bass, catfish,
or other suitable species. The kids twitch
with excitement as their parents teach them
the art of fishing while capturing all the
memories on film.
Fee-hunting leases on part or all of a farm
or ranch can be a suitable activity for many
landowners. Today, this is one of the most
profitable and environmentally compatible
land uses. Fee leasing is rapidly growing in
popularity as society accepts the concept of
paying for hunting privileges. The hunting
experience for big and small game, water-
fowl, or upland birds is enhanced by proper
habitat planning and management. Add to
this setting a few rustic cabins for the hunters
to spend their evenings impressing others
with past hunting successes produces a total
recreational experience.
These are just a few examples of relative-
ly low-investment types of recreational ac-
tivities that can be added to an existing farm
enterprise. Additional recreational examples,
such as campgrounds, vacation farms, dude
ranches, bed and breakfasts, and places to
purchase locally made crafts and prepared
foods may require a slightly higher invest-
ment. The right recreational activity in the
right location provides compatible, cost-
effective, and sound stewardship uses asso-
ciated with agricultural land. SCS specialists
assist landowners in developing these crea-
tive recreational proposals while implement-
ing not only sustainable agricultural systems,
but all U.S. Department of Agriculture en-
deavors.—Gary /. Jann, Soil Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
44 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
Farm price distortions,
chemical use, and the environment
CROP surpluses have constituted a per-
sistent and conspicuous problem
for U.S. agriculture. These sur-
pluses appear to be particularly wasteful
when they are caused by chemical inputs
that pollute the environment. Past surpluses
resulted in part from the encouragement of
farm price support programs to increase ap-
plication of chemicals and other nonland in-
puts. Initiatives during 1985 farm bill delib-
erations and, more recently, during negotia-
tions under the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade have focused on means to
eliminate farm program influences on input
use. More modest initiatives, undertaken in
anticipation of the 1990 farm bill discus-
sions, would reduce program influences over
input use while preserving much of past
price support program structures. The lat-
ter are stimulated partly by environmental
and conservation concerns (2, 7).
Current programs and proposed policy
options have several implications. Although
some farm programs and water quality
are in conflict, complementarities between
farmers' goals and water quality also exist.
Some options offered mainly to reduce price
and resource use distortions could benefit
both farmers and the environment.
The impacts of farm subsidies
Subsidies for a commodity or a produc-
tion input raise profits, which can encourage
firms to use more inputs, such as fertilizer
or irrigation water, to produce more of the
profitable commodity. U.S. farm commodity
program payments have fostered chemical
use in two ways. First, deficiency payments
supported prices and raised the demand for
chemicals to enhance base yields on farms.1
Second, price supports encouraged base
acreages (planted acreage recorded for some
past period) of supported crops, such as corn
and wheat, to expand relative to nonprogram
crops, such as hay and soybeans, which hap-
pen to require less chemicals.
Maintenance of base acreages is frequent-
ly cited for supposed negative effects on
crop rotations. But crop rotations involving •
corn and soybeans or hay can reduce soil
erosion, and they allow farmers to virtually
Clayton W. Ogg is an economist with the Office
of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460.
By Clayton W. Ogg
eliminate use of insecticides. Corn pests die
during the year the other crops are rotated,
and vice versa (3). Soybeans and legumes
"fix" nitrogen in the soil, further reducing
chemical needs. Farmers are said to main-
tain more continuous corn acreages, without
rotations, anticipating that future programs
may update the base acreage history (7).2
Acreage reduction programs counter base
acreage expansions, as little chemical use
occurs on set-aside acres. But acreage reduc-
tions ultimately add to price distortions by
making less cropland available and bidding
up land prices. Chemicals then are sub-
stituted for land, completely offsetting the
chemical savings on idled land (5).
Incentives to use chemicals vary with each
price support mechanism. For example,
marketing quotas used in the past to support
cotton, rice, and tobacco prices offer rela-
tively little encouragement for more chem-
ical use compared to the target price mech-
anisms described above. Farmers prefer to
reduce variable production inputs, such as
pesticides and fertilizer, rather than land, to
meet quota limits on production. Set-asides
of feed grain and wheat acreage, on the other
hand, raise land values much more than
quotas do, and fertilizer is a close substitute
for land (5).
Even subsidized irrigation in the West en-
courages higher rates of fertilizer and pes-
ticide application to complement heavier
water use (4). Policies that create water mar-
kets or reduce water price distortions in
other ways can conserve water as well as
reduce pollution from chemicals.
Reducing deficiency payments
Reductions in subsidies may occur as a
result of international trade negotiations or
through unilateral modifications in farm pro-
grams. Reducing subsidies is one of several
options likely to be discussed in the com-
ing year as policymakers attempt to reduce
price distortions and budget exposure.
Reducing target prices and deficiency pay-
'This is a delayed response because today's yields can
affect payments only under future programs; the payments
usually are based on a yield history from a designated past
period, called the "base yield," times the base acreage, times
the difference between current target prices and market
prices.
2Dairy price supports, however, may have the opposite
effect, as they encourage more livestock demand for hay
crops, which are rotated with grains.
ments for feed grains and wheat would have
the largest direct impact on agriculture.
Their magnitude (8) gives deficiency pay-
ments the greatest influence on acreage
planted in these relatively chemical-intensive
crops. Particularly in recent years, when
nearly all larger producers of program crops
have participated in programs, the base acre-
age incentive has provided direct program
influence over land and chemical use.
Disaster relief payments also are tied to
base yields, adding to resource use distor-
tions from deficiency payments. Because of
these potential input distortions, reducing
deficiency and disaster subsidies would
decrease U.S. agriculture's incentives to use
more land and other inputs.
Reducing price or yield distortions
Price and chemical use distortions from
program payments can be controlled even
without reducing the payments themselves.
Target price incentives to use more fertilizer,
irrigation water, and other inputs (except
land) stem from use of farm base yields as
the basis for tying deficiency payments to
recent production of a particular commodi-
ty. A number of options, such as continu-
ing, indefinitely, the current freeze on each
farm's base yield or using a national yield
index to update each farm's yield history,
would eliminate the use of recent farm yields
in computing payments to farmers.
Commodity price distortions also could
be eliminated for nonland inputs by using
only average county yields to compute
payments rather than allowing farmers to in-
crease their farm's yield history or base yield
above their neighbors' by applying more
chemicals and other inputs. Farmers would
henceforth have no incentive to increase
their yields beyond levels suggested by world
market prices, which in recent years have
been 20 to 50 percent lower.
Since 1985, the United States has relied
more on deficiency payments and export
subsidies and avoided supporting the loan
rate at levels that make U.S. goods un-
competitive. With world prices well below
our target prices, price distortions could
become substantial resource use considera-
tions (1). For example, suppose grain pro-
ducers expect their farms' base yields to be
updated in future years and gear their
January-February 1990 45
-------
chemical use to the target price rather than
to the world price. In this case they clearly
would apply more fertilizer and pesticides.
Their use of other nonland inputs, such as
labor and machinery, also would increase.
These incentives to increase input use raise
the cost of controlling crop surpluses as well
as add to chemical contamination worries.
Keeping the base yield frozen and related
options reduce distortions in use of all the
above inputs, but not land. Farmers would
still maintain or expand base acreages to
gain larger payments because base acreages
are in the formula for computing target price
payments, as are base yields. Other inputs
complementary to land would still be af-
fected indirectly by grain deficiency pay-
ments, but only from acreage expansion
itself or through substitution of other pro-
duction inputs for land. Recall that acreage
set-asides are roughly neutral with respect
to fertilizer use (5).
Reducing base acreage distortions
In spite of concern about input use distor-
tions due to base acreage provisions, fewer
options exist to operate price supports
without farm base acreages than without
farm-based yields. Elimination of the base
acreage tool for tying payments to a com-
modity could eventually make payments
function like income transfer (or welfare)
programs because base acreages constitute
the link between farm program subsidies and
production activity.
Even if programs temporarily reduce
restrictions on farmers' use of base acreages,
some farmers may increase plantings to
build up their base. For example, farm pro-
gram rules introduced base acreage flexibili-
ty in the 1973-1980 period: Payments for
wheat and feed grains were tied to a single,
past year's plantings and yields of supported
commodities, but virtually any use of base
acreage was permitted and changing crops
had no influence on yearly payments. In cer-
tain years, a portion of this old base acreage
had to be idled, but the remaining acreage
could be used for any crop or for no crop
at all. Base yields also were tied to past
yields.
Did this flexible system actually result in
a decoupling of payments from planting
decisions? The answer depends upon farm-
ers' expectations. Those farmers who were
shrewd or lucky enough to anticipate that the
1981 farm legislation would once again up-
date base yields and base acreages likely
maintained or increased base acreages and
yields of feed grains, wheat, and cotton. Ex-
pansion in crop acreage of program crops
continued in the late 1970s period even as
market conditions began to deteriorate (8).
Can farmers be persuaded that future pro-
grams will not base payments on today's
planting decisions? As cropping patterns
shift, future farm bills clearly may again
alter base acreages between states and be-
tween farms. Such uncertainties make it
much more difficult to eliminate programs'
land use or cropping pattern distortions
compared to reducing other input use distor-
tions caused by price supports.
Encouraging introduction of legumes and
forage-based livestock activities by increas-
ing base acreage flexibility appears to be
especially difficult. Farmers have no assur-
ance that future market conditions will not
make them dependent again on programs.
Base acreage flexibility
The main environmental advantages that
may result from base flexibility would stem
from increased corn-soybean rotations in the
Corn Belt. Although modeling farm pro-
gram effects on crop rotations is difficult,
the actual acreage shifts for soybeans in
response to the major payment-in-kind (PEEC)
programs of the early 1980s can be exam-
ined, and the impacts on rotations involv-
ing soybeans inferred. Assume for the sake
of analysis that base flexibility rules would
be maintained permanently so that farmers
cease to plant more program crops to build
up their base.
Soybean plantings declined 7 million
acres when major price support programs
took effect in 1983 (8); the incentive to ex-
pand base acreages of feed grains could have
caused this decline in soybean plantings. But
the national decline in soybean acreages
does not prove that base acreage provisions
discourage crop rotations. Soybean acres de-
clined with the reintroduction of major gov-
ernment involvement in agriculture in the
first half of the 1980s. But the entire seven-
million-acre reduction in soybean acreage
between 1980 and 1985 occurred in southern
states, where soybean acreages exceeded
corn acreages.
Soybean acreage remained relatively un-
changed in Corn Belt states, which need
more soybeans for crop rotation with corn.
Programs appear then to have little impact
on this rotation crop in the Corn Belt and
Sorghum and soybean acreages in
soybean-producing states, 1980
Sorghum
State
7980
7985
predominantly
and 1985 (8)
Soybeans
1980
7985
thousand acres
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
Total
65
275
NA
NA
150
40
32
NA
75
950
103
700
30
55
21
2,496
270
940
NA
NA
175
150
425
NA
650
1,450
90
580
80
480
NA
5,290
220
4,800
265
475
2,450
1,650
3,450
400
4,000
5,700
2,030
350
1,700
2,650
620
32,740
1,080
3,750
245
260
1,800
1,260
2,250
410
2,700
5,300
1,800
210
1,290
1,500
720
24,575
Corn and soybean planted acreages in predominantly
corn-producing states, 1980 and 1985 (8)
Sorghum
State
1980
1985
Soybeans
7980
7985
thousand acres
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Nebraska
Ohio
South Dakota
Texas
Total
11,600
6,300
13,900
1,300
3,100
7,300
7,800
4,250
780
1,550
57,880
1 1 ,700
5,450
14,000
1,700
2,950
7,350
7,350
4,150
1,280
1,500
58,700
9,300
4,400
8,300
1,550
960
4,800
1,830
3,800
3,480
700
39,120
9,100
4,500
8,200
1,500
1,100
5,100
2,400
3,900
3,510
320
39,630
-------
Water price and input Use for surface water and groundwater users, 1982*
Water source
Pesticides Machinery Hired
Water Fertilizer and herbicides Energy capital^ labor
($/acre-foot) ($/acre); ($/acre). , ($/acre) ($/acre) ($/acre)
Water Irrigated Cropland
(Acre-foot/acre (acre/ (acre/
irrigated) farm) farm)
Surface water
only userst
Groundwater
users§
15
35
36
28
25
13
31
37
242
201
40
2.7
279
496
24 1.8 -'..'•';' 585 824
*Based on a sample of 547 farms growing only field crops (no livestock or specialty crops). All input use is for 1982, except
water, which is for 1984. Primary data were from the 1982 Census and from a special 1984 Farm and Ranch Irrigation
Survey (7). I am indebted to the Agricultural Division, Bureau of the Census, for allowing use of the primary data, and
to the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. The sample design, data collection, and processing
were conducted by the Bureau of the Census. I take sole responsibility for the analysis and results.
fMachinery represents a capital input, whereas all other inputs, except water, are expenditures for 1982.
$Price and water use data are for off-farm surface water only. ,
§The water price used is the farmer's estimate of groundwater pumping cost/acre foot: (Some of these groundwater users
also obtained surface water.) : .:•;•......•." v ; , •;
apparently increased opportunities for soy-
bean rotations with grain sorghum in the
South. More sorghum reduces the need for
chemically intensive soybean monoculture.
According to data from the Cost of Pro-
duction Survey of the Economic Research
Service, more than two-thirds of midwest-
ern corn was grown in some type of rota-
tion with soybeans. Base yield options
(described earlier) may be much more of a
chemical use consideration than base acre-
age effects on crop rotations.
Reduction in soybean acreage, however >
may result from program rules that prohibit
double-cropped soybeans on wheat set-
asides (6). Double-cropping may not greatly
affect the need for insecticides, but it greatly
reduces soil erosion compared with soybean
monoculture. Double-cropping also reduces
the need to apply nitrogen to the wheat crop.
Would soybean plantings rebound in the
South under the base flexibility option, or
would soybeans advance in the Corn Belt,
expanding beyond the levels that existed
prior to the 1983 PIK program? If the ex-
pansion occurs in the South, double-crop-
ping will reduce soil erosion. If the adjust-
ment occurs instead in the Corn Belt, corn-
soybean rotations will likely increase and
reduce chemical use.
In the long run, price supports also affect
technology development and adoption by
farmers. Research in the Palouse Region
suggests that farmers might adopt a yearly
wheat rotation with a legume called black
medic. Black medic efficiently fixes nitro-
gen to the soil, eliminating the need for ni-
trogen fertilizer. In the absence 6f price sup-
ports,3 or perhaps under the base flexibili-
ty option, such extensive agricultural tech-
3Young, D. L., and W. A. Goldstein. 1989. "How govern-
ment programs discourage sustainable cropping systems: A
U.S. case study." Paper presented at Farming Systems
Research Symposium, Fayetteville, Ark.
nologies become suitable for educational
programs. But the analysis suggests that de-
veloping flexible options capable of facili-
tating such long-run changes is particularly
difficult.
Water subsidies
Just as supporting commodity prices en-
courages more chemical and other input use,
subsidized prices for surface water used for
irrigation are said to encourage more inten-
sive use, riot only of water, but also of fer-
tilizer and other complementary inputs (4).
Surface water users, who pay less for water
than do groundwater users, apply consider-
ably more chemicals and other inputs to
conventional field crops.
The 547 irrigated farrhs encompassed in
the accompanying table were weighted by
the Bureau of the Census to represent about
10,000 farms growing field crops, but no
livestock or specialty crops, in the western
states. This is a relatively homogeneous
groiip of farms, drawn from the original
11,000 irrigated farms that responded to the
survey (9). Water prices and water use could
account for the lower input use by ground-
water irrigators, who receive lower subsidies
than the surface water irrigators.
Once again, various options are proposed
to make water prices reflect the true cost of
water. Some options, Such as raising the
price irrigators pay for Bureau of Reclama-
tion water, clearly would not benefit formers.
Complementarities in farm policy
Policy options that reduce deficiency pay-
ments for farm commodities or reduce water
subsidies are advocated for reasons of effi-
ciency and budget limitations and to increase
agricultural trade. Generally, lower subsidies
also reduce economic pressures to apply
chemicals and other inputs (2).
Virtual eliminatibri of commodity price
distortions that encourage chemical use also
can accompany continuation of the current
subsidy levels, so long as programs avoid
creating incentives to increase farms' base
yields. The reductions in chemical and other
input applications benefit farmers, too, and
taxpayers, because farm prices greatly af-
fect farm production inputs, and price distor-
tions aggravate crop surpluses. More flexi-
ble use of program acres could even allow
programs to claim a net reduction in certain
pollutants because acreage reductions like-
wise reduce chemical use. Markets for water
rights would result, similarly, in water, fer-
tilizer, and other input savings, and would
benefit farmers through the sale of water
rights to higher value uses.
REFERENCES CITED
li Ball, V. E. 1988. Modeling supply response in
a multiproduct framework. Am. J. Agr. Econ.
70(4): 813-825.
2. Batie, S. 1988. Agriculture as the problem: New
agendas and new opportunities. S. J. Agr.
Econ. 20(1): 1-12.
3. Center for Agriculture and Rural Development.
1988. Com root worm analysis: An application
ofCEEPS, Iowa State Univ., Ames.
4. Frederic, K. D. 1986. Irrigated agriculture and
mineralized water: Comment and discussion. In
T. T. Phipps,.P. R. Crosson, and K. A. Price
[eds.] Agriculture and the Environment. Re-
, sources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
5. Hertel, T. W. 1988. Changing the level and mix
of subsidies to agriculture: Implications for out-
put, exports, employment, and factor returns.
Staff Paper 88-2. Dept. Agr. Econ., Purdue
Univ., West Lafayette; Ind.
6. Holloway, H. 1989. A mixed integer program-
ming model for analysis of impact of conserva-
tion compliance. M.S. thesis. N. Car. State
Univ., Raleigh.
7. Reichelderfer, K., and T. T. Phipps. 1988.
Agricultural policy and environmental quality.
Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Re-
sources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
8. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Various issues.
Agricultural statistics. Washington, D.C.
9. U.S. Department of Comrnercfe. 1986. 1984 farm
arid ranch irrigation survey. Rpt. AG-84-SR-1.
Bun Census, Washington, D.C. D
January-February 1990 47
-------
Low-input • ^
agriculture i -
reduces \ i
nonpoint-source,
pollution \;
By Anne C. Weinberg
:"!:; J4!^i^*|fe;yt
DESPITE progress, agriculture con-
tinues to impose stress on the envi-
ronment. Much of agriculture's em-
phasis in the past focused on increasing out-
put, such as yield. Now, emphasis needs to
be put on what Odum terms "input manage-
ment" (2). The way to reduce nonpoint-
source pollution, he suggests, is to manage
inputs more efficiently—not just for agricul-
tural systems, but for all production systems.
Reduced-tillage cropping systems and im-
proved pesticide and nutrient management
are examples of low-input practices that re-
duce unwanted outputs. State nonpoint-
source management programs are a primary
vehicle for promoting the use of low-input
agricultural approaches.
Consequences of high inputs
Groundwater pollution is emerging as a
central issue. At present, the extent of pes-
ticide contamination of groundwater cannot
be determined (3). The U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) has a national
pesticide survey underway. It is the first na-
tionwide investigation of pesticide contam-
ination of drinking water wells. This survey
involves sampling of both domestic and
community wells for more than 70 pesticides
and for nitrates. The survey should produce
the first nationally consistent data to support
EPA decision-making. The final survey re-
port is due in the fall of 1990.
In addition to that survey, EPA compiles
summaries of pesticides found in ground-
water due to normal applications to the land
that are reported by various states where
monitoring has occurred. In 1984, 12 pesti-
cides were found in groundwater as a result
of normal applications in 18 states (3). By
1985, 17 pesticides had been detected in 23
states (3). In December 1988, EPA released
an interim report on pesticide detections in
groundwater indicating that normal agricul-
tural use apparently had led to residues of
46 different pesticides in groundwater in 26
states (7). Additional monitoring will like-
ly reveal more locations where pesticides
have entered groundwater.
Groundwater monitoring over the past
decade also indicates a growing problem of
contamination from agricultural use of ni-
trate fertilizers. According to another EPA
report (4), the frequency and levels of nitrate
contamination in water wells increased in
Anne C. Welnberg, currently living in Stockholm,
Sweden, is on a one-year leave of absence from her
position as an environmental protection specialist,
NonpoiM Source Control Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460. This
paper is based on her presentation at the conference,
"The Promise of Low-Input Agriculture: A Search
for Sustainability and Profitability.
48 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
nearly every state bet-ween 1970 and 1985.
This review and other studies indicate a di-
rect relationship between nitrate leaching to
groundwater and nitrogen fertilizer use rates.
According to a 1986 national assessment
of surface waters (5), nonpoint-source pollu-
tion is the most pervasive and among the
most serious water quality problems remain-
ing in the United States. Agricultural runoff
was by far the most common cause of non-
point-source pollution in both lakes and
streams reported by the states in 1986. Of
the assessed waters impaired or threatened
by nonpoint sources, agricultural activities
were a major cause in 64 percent of the na-
tion's rivers and streams and 57 percent of
the lakes (5).
The nonpoint-source problems in surface
waters due to agriculture can be illustrated
by the experiences in Chesapeake Bay. EPA's
1983 study of the Chesapeake Bay found
nonpoint sources of pollution among the
chief causes of the bay's decline (10). Based
on an extensive modelling effort concluded
in 1983, EPA estimated that in an average
year nonpoint sources contributed 67 per-
cent of the nitrogen and 39 percent of the
phosphorus that were entering the bay. Point
sources were found to contribute the dif-
ferences: 33 percent of nitrogen and 61 per-
cent of phosphorus.
Runoff from cropland contributed the
largest estimated share of the nonpoint-
source nutrient load to Chesapeake Bay (10).
While fanning has occurred around the bay
for more than 300 years, significant changes
in farming methods have occurred in the last
40 years, altering the impacts on the bay. In
the Chesapeake Basin, cropland declined 24
percent between 1950 and 1980 (8). The re-
sulting intensification of agricultural activity,
that is growing more on less land in the
basin, has led to a major increase in the use
of fertilizers and other chemicals inputs (9).
In addition, the consolidation of agricultural
land into fewer and larger farms, owned by
absentee landlords or corporations and op-
erated by tenants, may reduce the incentive
to control soil and chemical loss.
Section 319 programs
The most recent national legislative re-
sponse to these nonpoint-source pollution
problems is Section 319 of the Water Quali-
ty Act of 1987. Under this section, each state
had to develop and submit for EPA approval
a nonpoint-source assessment report and
management program by August 4, 1988.
EPA then reviewed and approved the state
submissions and allowed states additional,
limited time to revise and resubmit reports
or programs that were not approved initially.
The contents of both the assessment report
and the management program are listed in
detail in Section 319 of the Clean Water Act,
as amended. Briefly, the assessment report
must identify (a) the navigable waters within
the state that will not attain or maintain water
quality standards or the goals and objectives
of the act without additional action to con-
trol nonpoint sources, (b) the categories of
nonpoint sources responsible for the water
quality problems, (c) the process the state
has used to identify the best management
practices to control nonpoint sources, and
(d) the state and local programs available to
address the identified problems.
The nonpoint-source management pro-
gram is a plan for what the state intends to
do over the next four years to begin address-
ing nonpoint-source problems identified in
the assessment report. The management
program must include (a) the best manage-
HOW LOW-INPUT AGRICULTURE CAN HELP MAINTAIN WATER QUALITY
Farmers and rural communities alike are
significantly affected by the contamination
of surface water and groundwater supplies.
Half of the population in the United States
depends upon groundwater for its drinking
water. In Iowa and Nebraska, 86 percent of
the population relies on groundwater for its
water supplies, as do 75 percent of the peo-
ple in Kansas. Virtually all of the water
farmers use comes from the ground without
any treatment. Most rural communities do
not have water treatment systems, either.
Agricultural chemicals are the greatest,
uncontrolled threat in the United States to
surface water and groundwater quality. Most
of the problems are because of the large
number of acres devoted to agricultural pro-
duction.
In the past, the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) focused its programs
on controlling point sources of pollution.
Recently, the agency began emphasizing
more programs on nonpoint-source pollution
problems, namely, agricultural chemical run-
off. Every state in the United States has since
developed a nonpoint-source management
plan, with a central focus on groundwater
in rural areas.
Three of EPA's initiatives to address prob-
lems from agricultural chemical pollution in-
clude the following:
>• The National Pesticide Survey, an at-
tempt by EPA to determine the levels of pes-
ticides in groundwater throughout the United
States. The program involves testing 1,500
wells, 750 private wells, and 750 public water
systems. Initial results are to be released this
spring.
>• The Pesticide and Groundwater Strat-
egy, previously titled the Agricultural Chem-
ical Strategy, is a program in which states
are encouraged to develop plans to identify
those areas where specific pesticides can or
cannot be used. If states do not develop
plans, then EPA's overall plan will come in-
to effect. Essentially, EPA's plan would be
more stringent than a state's tailored plan for
site-specific conditions.
>• The Wellhead Protection Program also
encourages states to develop programs for
local communities to protect areas surround-
ing their well or wellfield. Under the guid-
ance of a state plan, communities can de-
velop individual plans to control potential
groundwater contamination activities within
their designated wellhead area.
EPA also has been emphasizing proper
disposal of pesticide containers. Guidelines
are outlined on the label that accompanies
every pesticide sold. However, some prob-
lems do occur. For example, if a requirement
calls for disposing of cans in a sanitary land-
fill that is a long distance from the applica-
tion site, farmers may not voluntarily com-
ply. In fact, because farmers need water to
mix with pesticides in the sprayer, often,
empty cans are stacked around the well—
the same well that supplies untreated drink
ing water to farm families and livestock.
Education is needed now more than ever
to explain to farmers the dangers of using
chemicals and the importance of proper
disposal. Farmers already know that agricul-
tural chemicals pose a threat to their health
and to the environment. What they don't
know is how to stop using them without af-
fecting farm profitability.
In the future, we will see:
>• More biotechnologies and natural pes-
ticides, such as crop rotations.
>• More prescriptive use of pesticides.
The labels will contain additional restric-
tions, such as where, when, and how the pes-
ticides can be used.
*- More emphasis within EPA on water
quality problems caused by agriculture and
silviculture. Agriculture and silviculture
combined account for more than 80 percent
of land use in America.
>• More coordination and cooperation be-
tween the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and EPA to create complementary programs
to protect surface water and groundwater.
>• Some form of a monetary deposit
placed on agricultural chemical containers,
with chemical dealers playing an important
role in recycling.—Robert'Fenemore, Office
of Groundwater Protection, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Kansas City, Kan-
sas, speaking at "The Promise of Low-Input
Agriculture" conference.
January-February 1990 49
-------
menl practices (BMPs) that the state plans
to use to reduce nonpoint-source pollution,
(b) a summary of the state's nonpoint-source
implementation programs, (c) a schedule of
annual milestones for the next four years,
(d) a certification by the state attorney
general that the laws of the state are adequate
to implement the management program, (e)
sources of funding to implement the pro-
gram, and (f) federal financial assistance
programs and development projects that the
state will review for consistency with its
management program, referred to as the
federal consistency provision.
While the emphasis in Section 319 is on
surface water, EPA guidance (<5) encouraged
states also to identify any known or sus-
pected groundwater problems caused by
nonpoint sources in their assessment re-
ports.
While EPA was disappointed that more
slates did not meet the initial reporting dead-
line of August 4,1988, most states are mak-
ing substantial progress in meeting the re-
quirements of Section 319. As of mid-
February 1990, EPA had approved 55 final
assessment reports. Also as of that date, EPA
had approved 54 management programs-
cither portions of programs or complete
management programs.
Nonpoint-source management programs
provide an opportunity for states to promote
use of low-input agricultural approaches.
While there is no comprehensive summary
of the contents of all state programs, reviews
of selected states indicate that many are pro-
moting such approaches in their nonpoint-
source management programs. For example,
Virginia as well as other Chesapeake Bay
states have instituted nutrient management
programs as part of their bay cleanup efforts,
and these arc reflected in their management
programs,
Funding for state programs
The Water Quality Act of 1987 also pro-
vides a variety of funding sources for im-
plementing state management programs.
These funding sources may be used to pro-
mote low-input agricultural practices,
among other activities. Funding sources
include:
*• Section 205(j){5), which is a set-aside
of up to one percent of each state's construc-
tion grant allotment or a minimum of
$100,000. Funds may be used for both de-
veloping and implementing nonpoint-source
assessment reports and management pro-
grams.
*• Section 319{h) authorized $400 million
in fiscal years 1988 to 1991 for implemen-
ting state management programs. Congress
appropriated $40 million in fiscal year 1990.
^- Section 319(i) authorized up to $7.5
million annually of the Section 319 total for
any groundwater protection activities that
will advance states toward implementation
of comprehensive nonpoint-source control
programs. Targets for groundwater activities
will be established as part of Section 319(h)
grant awards in fiscal year 1990.
>~ Section 201(g)(l)(B) authorized states
to use up to 20 percent of their construction
grant allotment to implement their manage-
ment programs. Delaware, South Dakota,
and other states have Used these funds.
*- Section 603(c)(2) allows states to use
their state revolving funds to implement their
management programs. These funds may
provide an important source of nonpoint-
source implementation funds in the future
as point-source controls needs are met.
>- Section 604(b) is a water quality
management planning reserve attached to
the state revolving funds that can be used
in support of nonpoint-source and other
planning activities.
In addition, EPA has encouraged states to
use their own resources and to leverage the
resources and authorities of other federal
agencies to help accomplish nonpoint-source
program objectives. One example of these
opportunities is the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) established by the Food
Security Act of 1985, under which highly
erodible land is retired from crop produc-
tion. The CRP effectively reduces soil ero-
sion, and EPA continues to work with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to
increase the program's water quality
benefits. A positive step in this direction was
USDA's decision to include filter strips along
waterways among the acres eligible for CRP
enrollment.
Best management practices
While states were to identify the overall
dimensions of their nonpoint-source water
quality problems in their assessment reports,
EPA's Section 319 guidance encouraged
states to carve out a subset of these waters
in their state management programs for con-
certed action on a watershed-by-watershed
basis over the next four years. The rationale
for this is that targeting implementation ac-
tivities to particular geographic areas pro-
vides the greatest opportunity for achieving
visible water quality improvements in the
short run (I). In addition, the Section 319
guidance encouraged states to develop state-
wide program approaches to address such
nonpoint-source problems as construction
erosion, urban stormwater runoff from de-
veloping areas, and forestry practices. States
may promote use of low-input agricultural
approaches as part of targeted watershed
projects as well as part of statewide or re-
gional education programs.
States will be identifying the best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) that they will be us-
ing in the implementation of their manage-
ment programs. States continue to imple-
ment traditional soil and Water conservation
practices as well as other approaches, such
as integrated pest management and nutrient
management. The emphasis in traditional
soil and water conservation programs has
been on the installation of structural BMPs,
such as terraces, grassed waterways, and
animal waste storage facilities. These prac-
tices have the greatest impact oil sediment
and sediment-associated pollutants in sur-
face runoff. Reducing sediment and associ-
ated pollutant loadings in surface waters are
appropriate water quality objectives in many
watersheds.
Increasingly, soil and water conservation
agencies are also recognizing the importance
of reducing the input of pesticides and fertil-
izers to groundwater. Source controls, such
as restricting or banning use of pesticides
in areas vulnerable to groundwater contam-
ination, is an effective approach. Nutrient
application rates also may be restricted.
Other land management practices, such as
modifying application methods for animal
waste; irrigation scheduling to minimize
water use, surface runoff, and leaching; and
conservation tillage can minimize loss of
pollutants to surface and groundwater. As
emphasized above, these types of low-input
agricultural approaches hold the promise of
reducing unwanted outputs and, hence,
reducing nonpoint-source pollution.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Maas, R. P., M. D. Smolen, C. A. Jamieson,
and A. C. Weinberg. 1987. Setting priorities: The
key to nonpoint source control. U.S. Environ.
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
2. Odum, E. P. 1989. Input management of pro-
duction systems. Science 243: 177-182.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986.
Pesticides in ground water background docu-
ment. Off. Ground-Water Protection, Washing-
ton, D.C.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987.
Draft report: Assessment of nitrogen fertilizer
use on ground water nitrate levels. Off. Toxic
Substances, Washington, D.C.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987.
National water quality inventory: 1986 report to
Congress. Off. Water, Washington, D.C.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987.
Nonpoint source guidance. Off. Water Regula-
tions and Standards, Washington, D.C.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988.
EPA issues interim report of pesticide detections
in groundwater. Press release, Dec. 13.
Washington, D.C.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
3. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: A framework for ac-
tion. Annapolis, Md.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
3. 1983. Chesapeake Bay program: Findings and
recommendations. Philadelphia, Pa.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
3. 1988. Chesapeake Bay nonpoint source pro-
grams. Annapolis, Md. O
50 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
Research on alternative
farming systems and
alternative chemical
management should aid
in the search for
ecological sustainability
By Richard Lowrance
Soil Conservation Service
Research approaches
for ecological sustainability
SUSTAINABLE agriculture is an objec-
tive often used as shorthand for a
particular set of practices. Because
of the confusion engendered by various uses
of the term "sustainable" and because of the
various components of the food and agricul-
tural system upon which people focus, sus-
tainability has numerous competing mean-
ings, including "sustainability as food suf-
ficiency," "sustainability as stewardship,"
and "sustainability as community" (1, 2, 3).
These three views were integrated into a
hierarchical view by defining the various
sustainability objectives that are necessary
Richard Lowrance is an ecologist with the South-
east Watershed Research Laboratory, Agricultural
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Tifton, Georgia 31793. The views expressed herein
are the author's and were developed as a Fellow in
the Leadership Development Program, National
Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Resources
for the Future. These views do not necessarily reflect
the views and policies of ARS, USDA.
within modern agricultural systems (6).
These sustainability objectives can be
described as:
>• Agronomic sustainability—the ability
of a tract of land to maintain productivity
over a long period.
>• Microeconomic sustainability—the
ability of a farm to stay in business as the
basic economic unit.
>• Ecological sustainability—the ability
of life support systems to maintain the quali-
ty of the environment.
>• Macroeconomic sustainability—the
ability of national production systems to
compete in both domestic and foreign
markets.
Ecological sustainability is a necessary
condition to achieve long-term sustainability
at the field, farm, or national level. Degra-
dation of environmental quality through
management practices that pollute soil,
water, and air precludes the ecological sus-
tainability of a landscape or regional agri-
cultural system. Historically, the farm bills
passed before 1985 had few, if any, prdvi«
siOns to promote ecological sustainability;
these bills focused on farm income objec-
tives and on enhancing international trade.
The sodbusters swampbuster, and Conser-
vation compliance provisions of the 1985
Food Security Act are widely recognized as
providing a landmark link between farm
income support programs (largely to achieve
microeconomic sustainability) and environ-
mental quality protection (to achieve ecolog-
ical sustainability). In addition, expansion
of the Conservation Reserve Program to
make buffer strips eligible for enrollment
represented an explicit attempt to provide
financial incentives to improve water quality.
The debate forming around the next farm
bill promises to lead to more provisions to
achieve ecological sustainability, especial-
ly relative to water quality. Although water
January-February 1990 51
-------
quality is just one factor in determining
ecological sustainability, both Congress and
the executive branch have proposed various
initiatives to address water quality degrada-
tion resulting from agriculture.
One of the proposals to improve water
quality is to provide incentives for and re-
move barriers against low-input farm man-
agement (4). This approach has been em-
bodied in S.970, introduced by Senator
Wyehe Fowler (D-Ga.) and others. Among
other things, this bill would allow formers
who attempt the transition to low-input
management to maintain their commodity
crop base acreage. In addition, the bill pro-
vides financial incentives and technical
assistance for application of low-input tech-
niques.
Many observers believe that provisions of
this sort will be included in the next farm
bill. Successful implementation of this pro-
gram will require a new commitment to
develop farming systems that are sustainable
at the field, farm, ecosystem, and national
levels. Development of these production
systems will require a novel approach to
agricultural research in the United States.
An optimistic view
Increasing public concern over environ-
mental quality has not yet been translated
into substantive changes in agricultural prac-
tices. The special status of agriculture as an
industry—the only industry that produces
the food we eat—has provided an extraor-
dinary level of support for agriculture in the
past. Possibly, the special status given to
agriculture will mean that the public will
hold agriculture, as an industry, to higher
standards of environmental quality and safe-
ly than other industries. The future for U.S.
forming will require considerably more em-
phasis on environmental quality. This trend
is already apparent in parts of the country
where environmental quality, particularly
water quality, has been most degraded by
agriculture.
Most farmers and other agricultural pro-
fessionals think that the agricultural com-
munity can solve its own problems related
to environmental quality. Solving these
problems means that farming practices will
be modified so that the general public will
have confidence in farmers' ability to pro-
duce safe, abundant food without adverse ef-
fects on the environment. People in the agri-
cultural community would generally agree
that eliminating general environmental deg-
radation from farming practices will come
about by redirecting part of the present
system of research, education, extension,
technical assistance, and financial incen-
tives. If the public loses confidence in the
ability of this system to solve agriculture's
environmental quality problems, the nation
will turn to regulatory approaches that may
impose management practices without ade-
quate knowledge of their effects on all levels
of sustainability.
Two approaches
Ecological sustainability relative to water
quality will be attained by reducing the
chemical outputs from field-scale systems
to the environment. In this context, sus-
tainable production systems can be viewed
as a set of alternative techniques that, among
other things, reduce these chemical outputs
to levels that society deems acceptable. Two
general approaches can be applied to achieve
ecological sustainability: alternative farm-
ing systems and alternative chemical man-
agement.
The alternative farming systems approach
can be characterized by:
>• Reduced reliance on, or elimination
of, chemicals for pest control and chemical
fertilizer for nitrogen management.
^- Increased reliance on legumes, cover
crops, crop rotations, and animal manures
for fertility management.
>• Increased reliance on crop rotations,
tillage, cover crops, biological control, and
resistant varieties for control of insects,
nematodes, diseases, and weeds.
*- A shift to alternative crops when
previous management systems are unsuc-
cessful for agronomic goals or environ-
mental protection.
^- Selection of crops based on market
conditions, rotation requirements, land capa-
bilities, and pest pressures.
The alternative chemical management ap-
proach can be characterized by:
>• Continued reliance on chemicals for
pest control and fertilizer for nitrogen man-
agement.
>• Applications of chemicals based on
more precise calculations of need and tim-
ing of need.
>• Reliance on the development of new
technologies for chemical application to re-
tain hydrologically active chemicals in the
root zone.
>• A shift to alternative chemicals when
management of previous chemicals is unsuc-
cessful for agronomic goals or environmen-
tal protection.
>~ Selection of crops based on commodi-
ty programs, market conditions, and avail-
ability of chemical technologies.
Neither approach implies a level of tech-
nological sophistication, a scale of farm size,
or a value judgment relative to the desirabil-
ity of either approach. Although the two ap-
proaches are not mutually exclusive, they are
accurate descriptions of many research pro-
grams that eventually will be translated in-
to management recommendations.
Certain aspects of the two approaches may
be difficult to integrate; for example, late-
season herbicide use for weed control and
relay cropping of herbicide-sensitive crops
might be incompatible. Farmers may even-
tually adapt certain practices from both
systems to meet their needs, or they may opt
for approaches that largely fit the general
descriptions outlined. Either approach can
be integrated with off-field control pollution
measures, such as vegetated filter strips, sur-
face detention, or streamside buffers.
New research
The alternative farming systems and the
alternative chemical management ap-
proaches are not well integrated and have not
been applied comprehensively to the prob-
lems of water quality degradation from agri-
culture. Two new research initiatives rele-
vant to these approaches are the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture low-input/sustain-
able agriculture (LISA) grants program and
the USDA water quality research initiative.
The LISA program is the result of the Ag-
riculture Productivity Act, passed as part of
the Food Security Act of 1985. The Agri-
culture Productivity Act will be considered
for reauthorization in the next comprehen-
sive farm bill. Congress appropriated $3.9
million for LISA in fiscal year 1988 and $4.5
million in fiscal year 1989.
The USDA water quality research plan is
part of an interagency/interdepartment in-
itiative by the Bush Administration, which
proposed to allocate $58.6 million in new
water quality funding for fiscal year 1990,
with about 80 percent ($46.5 million) to
fund USDA programs. Congress provided
$14.6 million of new funding for fiscal year
1990 for research by three agencies: Agri-
cultural Research Service (ARS—$7.5 mil-
lion), Cooperative State Research Service
(CSRS—$5.3 million), and Economic Re-
search Service (ERS—$1.8 million). This
represents an increase of about 30 percent
in the research budget for water quality in
these three agencies overall.
The guiding principles for the LISA pro-
gram are ecological, agronomic, and eco-
nomic sustainability. These goals will be
achieved by substituting skilled manage-
ment, on-farm resources, and biological re-
sources for purchased chemical and non-
biological inputs from off-farm sources.
While reducing impacts on water quality is
important to LISA concepts, the program is
concerned with the full range of potential
threats to ecological sustainability (9) (Neil
Schaller, personal communication, 1989).
52 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
Low-input, sustainable systems will have
the greatest positive impact on environ-
mental quality if chemicals that cause water
quality problems are reduced or eliminated.
In the case of fertilizers, we cannot change
the fact that two of the essential plant
macronutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus,
can cause environmental quality problems
in either surface water or groundwater or
both. Crop production systems must pro-
vide these nutrients in relatively large
amounts, and systems that provide them
without commercial fertilizers are not
necessarily environmentally benign. For in-
stance, providing nitrogen from manure ap-
plication can cause excess, leachable nitrate
in the soil profile. Legume cover crops have
the potential to cause nitrate leaching if
nitrogen mineralization is not synchronized
with nitrogen uptake by the crop plant. Re-
search to understand the environmental
quality effects of various plant nutrition
schemes and to design plant nutrition sys-
tems to enhance both ecological and micro-
economic sustainability should be a part of
LISA.
Whether alternative farming systems con-
tribute to improved environmental quality by
reducing pesticide use depends upon the
specific chemical in question. Some pesti-
cides are very unlikely to create environ-
mental quality impacts due to field use. If
research on alternative farming systems
leads to reduction or elimination of the use
of pesticides that are not responsible for
groundwater or surface water contamina-
tion, environmental quality will not be im-
proved. Other sustainability objectives at the
agronomic or microeconomic level might be
met or soil quality might be improved, but
unless research is focused on problem pes-
ticides, environmental quality improvements
will not result from the new production
systems.
On the other hand, the USDA research
plan for water quality (10) emphasizes the
alternative chemical management approach
as the primary means to achieve improve-
ments in environmental quality. Emphasis
on controlled-release formulations of pes-
ticides, chemigation, and fertigation and a
major focus on the fete of agricultural chem-
icals indicate that this approach is dominant,
although not exclusive. Understanding how
to manage today's chemicals in today's pro-
duction systems should lead to short-term
benefits.
The problem is that alternative fanning
systems research is not being emphasized as
the long-term solution. Alternative farming
systems approaches will be less likely to
neglect other sustainability goals and the
relevant side effects. USDA, especially
ARS, has a pivotal role to play in bringing
Agricultural Research Service/Lowell Georgia
the systems approach to bear on environ-
mental quality problems.
Research approaches
The 1990 farm bill will probably provide
for increased incentives to reduce agricul-
tural impacts on environmental quality.
Groundwater has been of particular concern,
and legislation may include provisions that
link the finding of contaminated ground-
water to incentives or requirements to apply
low-input agronomic techniques. This ap-
proach runs ahead of the present state of
scientific knowledge and will compel the
scientific community to develop appropriate
techniques quickly and efficiently. Generally
stated, the level of scientific knowledge is
that we do not know how certain alternative
management practices will affect environ-
mental quality. This is especially true for al-
ternative farming systems that might be ap-
plied to improve environmental quality. In
addition, we also do not always know how
the alternative approaches will affect micro-
economic sustainability, the ability of farms
to stay in business. All of these unknowns
are arguments for committing substantial re-
sources to the alternative farming systems
approach.
Understanding how alternative manage-
ment systems can affect sustainability on dif-
ferent levels is urgent because of the nature
of natural systems and political systems
alike. Environmental contamination from
agriculture, especially groundwater contam-
ination, will take years to reverse. One rea-
son that groundwater was in the past thought
to be impervious to contamination was that
travel times for contaminants from the soil
surface to deeper aquifers can be 20 to 40
years (5, 8).
Political pressures may be even more
Researchers use a needle gauge to study
surface roughness on fields of ridge-till
pioneer Dick Thompson of Boone, Iowa.
compelling. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is waiting to see if the tradi-
tional research/extension/technology trans-
fer approach will work to improve environ-
mental quality as it has worked to raise pro-
ductivity. Without rapid progress in solving
these problems, public opinion, through
congressional action, will likely push EPA
into regulating the management practices
available to farmers.
A research framework
USDA is not alone in attempting to de-
velop farming systems that cause minimal
environmental damage. Farmers, land grant
universities, private institutions, state depart-
ments of agriculture and natural resources,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) all have critical roles to play. I
would like to propose an interdepartmental
framework that would use the expertise of
farmers, federal and state agencies, and
business and interest groups to bring about
the research needed to solve the problem.
I envision a research effort guided by
assessment of the problem areas in ground-
water and surface water contamination. The
assessment of chemical risks and the assess-
ment of vulnerable aquifers and surface
waters would be carried out by EPA, USGS,
and appropriate state agencies. The risk
assessments and the aquifer and surface
water assessments would help to focus
research by the agricultural community on
the problem chemicals and on the problem
areas of the country. In addition, EPA and
state environmental protection agencies will
have the ultimate responsibility to determine
January-February 1990 53
-------
whether water quality standards are being
met by agricultural practices, particularly
alternative chemical management practices.
ARS and the state land grant institutions
will interact in pursuing the alternative farm-
ing systems approaches and the alternative
chemical management approaches. These
research organizations can play specific
roles in both of these approaches.
The land grant institutions are well suited
to develop production systems designed spe-
cifically for individual natural resource sys-
tems. Land grant institutions usually derive
a portion of their research support from pub-
lie sources and a smaller but vital portion
from chemical companies and commodity
groups. In general, future public monies
should be focused to develop specific alter-
native farming systems that contribute to
long-term sustainability and possess the
characteristics described here.
Conversely, research on alternative chem-
ical management for specific commodities
should be funded largely by the ultimate
beneficiaries of the research. These benefi-
ciaries are primarily the chemical manufac-
turers that want to continue marketing exist-
ing chemicals and the commodity groups
that have a substantial interest in maintain-
ing today's cropping systems. The alternative
chemical management research can provide
the basis for maintaining the economic in-
terests represented by chemical manufac-
turers and dealers and commodity groups.
Land grant programs have to interact with.
appropriate farm-scale economics programs,
to determine the costs and benefits of spe-
cific alternative farming systems. Quantify-
ing the economic value of environmental
benefits will be critical if farmers are going
to be offered financial incentives to improve
off-farm environmental quality.
In general, ARS gets 100 percent of its
funding from public sources and, therefore,
is well suited to pursue research that will
reduce overall chemical use and lead to
changes in the mix of crops grown. Unlike
the land grant institutions, ARS is not in-
stitutionally equipped to develop specific
production systems for individual natural.
resource areas. The mission of ARS has
been defined repeatedly as research that has,
both national interest and widespread ap-
plicability.
The most appropriate areas for ARS rel-
ative to the two approaches discussed here.
arc to determine rates and pathways of basic
processes related to plant nutrition and pest
control or suppression and to develop mod-
els that incorporate this information about
basic processes. This research is likely to
have a more long-term and interdisciplinary
emphasis. These are the types of research
questions that ARS rightfully takes pride, in.
tackling. In addition, the national mission
and organization of ARS will be useful in
determining the ability of chemical manage-
ment approaches to meet national water
quality standards.
Cooperative Extension and USDA's Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) traditionally
have maintained an informal division in
technology transfer. Farmers traditionally
sought Extension Service advice to address
problems of animal and plant production,
while SCS advice and assistance was orient-
ed more toward soil conservation. As water
quality becomes a major concern in agricul-
tural landscapes, both Extension and SCS
are finding increased demands from farmers
and policymakers. Research in both areas
described should provide information for
these technology transfer activities.
Farmers have a critical role to play in both
the design and the adoption of these new
systems. Farmers who are willing to experi-
ment with reduced-input practices have been
successful in establishing farm systems that:
work agronomically and economically. In
any region farmers have a wide ranges of
abilities and resources. Farmers with the
most resources and abilities will lead, but
other fanners will need help from public
outreach and education to be able to follow.
The success of on-farm research by inno-
vative farmers or by innovative institutions,
such as the Rodale Research Center, points
out the need for farm-scale research on
farm, systems. Inadequate, support for farm:
systems research has been, identified as-
a major problem for the extension system
(7). The farm is the level at. which micro-
economic sustainability must be evaluated.
As alternative farming systems begin to de-
pend on fewer purchased inputs and more
management skill and manipulation of bio-
logical opportunities, • the importance of
farm-scale research will increase.
The combination of increasing interest
among farmers for technology transfer re-
lated to ecological sustainability and in-
creased need for on-farm and farm-scale
research will put both research and exten-
sion personnel in a new and potentially ex-
citing working relationship with farmers..
Farmers who have; successful alternative sys--
terns may want to know why they work—as
will research and extension scientists. Un-
derstanding farmer-initiated advances, and
transferring the information to other farmers
will be an. important role for research and
extension, personnel at. land-grant institu-
tions.
Counter to prevailing notions
The proposals hejcejn may run counter to,
a number of prevailing nations to: the agri-
culture research community. First, it is true
that the alternative chemical management
and the alternative farming systems ap-
proaches overlap, and the distinction be-
tween them can be blurred. I think the dis-
tinctions are important (a) to help focus the
alternative farming systems research on eco-
logical sustainability, particularly water
quality, and (b) to makfe it clear that keep-
ing chemicals in the root zone is only one
approach to improving water quality. Im-
proved chemical management systems can
be seen as the short-term approach to water
quality problems, and the farming systems
approach can be seen as the long-term
solution-
Second, I recognize that suggesting roles
for EPA, USGS, USDA, land grant institu-
tions, and farmers is only a paper solution.
Working together to solve the problems will
take, cooperation at all levels.. Nevertheless,
a model for interaction is needed, and these
ideas can help provide the roots of that
model.
Third, I recognize that the distinction be-
tween state and federal research roles is not
a strict dichotomy. If nothing else, the suc-
cessful interagency work that proceeds at ex-
periment stations and universities means that
neither federal nor state research will be ex-
clusively in one area. Yet,, the strengths iden-
tified for each research establishment appear
to be real, and I believe the proposed em-
phasis for each should be considered when
research policy is being set.
REFERENCES CITED
1, Berry, W. 1984. The agricultural crisis as a crisis
of community. In G, K. Douglas [ed.] Agricul-
tural Sustainability in a Changing World Order.,
Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. pp. 219-226..
2. Brown, G. E., Jr. 1984. Stewardship in agri-
culture. In Q. K. Douglas [ed.] Agricultural Sus-
tainability in a Changing World Order. Westview
Press, Boulder, Colo. pp. 147-158.
3, Douglas, G. K. 1984, The meanings of agricul-
tural sustainability. In G. K. Douglas [ed.] Agri-
cultural Sustainability in a Changing World
Order. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. pp. 3-301
4. Fleming, M. H. 1987. Agricultural chemicals
in ground water: Preventing contamination by.
removing barriers against low-input farm
management. Am. J Alternative Agr. 2: 124-130.
5.. Hallberg, G. R. 1986. Agrichemicals and water
quality. Colloquim on Agrichemical Manage-
ment and Water Quality. Board on Agr., Nat,
Acad. ScUNat.Res, Council, Washington, D.C.
6. Lovferance, R., P. F. Hendrix, and E. R Odum,
1986. A hierarchical approach to sustainable ag-
riculture. Am. J, Alternative Agr. 1: 169-173.
7,. National Research Council, 1989. Alternative
agriculture. Nat. Acad. Press, Washington, D.C,
8. Ronen, R, Y Knafi, and M. Magaritz. 1984,
Nitrogen presence in groundwateras affected by
the unsaturated zone. In B, "iferon, G. Dagan,
and J, Goldschmid [eds.] Pollutants in Porous,
Media. Ecolog. Studies No. 47, Springer-Verlag,
New York. N.Y, pp. 223-236.
9, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1988; Low-
input/sustainable agriculture: Research and
education program; Coop, State Res. Serv.and
Extension; Serv., Washington, DC..
10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1989, USDA
research plan for water quality, UiS. Gov. Print,
Qf£, Washington,, D.C Q
54 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
SPECIFICITY
The context of research
for sustainability
dP
By D. T, Walters, D, A, M.Qrtens.en, Q. A. Francis, R. W. Elrnpre, and J. W. King;
THE information required for specific
decision-making processes in agri-
culture is requested by a variety of
clientele, including congressional commit-
tees, environmental groups, and private in-
dustry representatives, as well- as individual
agricultural producers. The information re-
quested should provide the client with a
probability, of success, (usually economic) of
performing a given management practice,
such as crop variety selection, fertilization,
irrigation scheduling, or weed control, or-
in formulating resource management poll-.
cies, such as soil conservation, commodity
price supports, or regulation.
Decisions in production, agriculture re-.
quire information concerning the most ef-
fective farming operations, as well as the
most efficient allocation, of resources. Stocks
economic and political changes beyond the
control of the individual producer further
complicate the decision-making process (2).
Therefore, information required to, make
spund management decisions comes from
many diverse sources.
In the context of agricultural management
systems, we defuje specificity as the level •
of'informational detail required for the most
appropriate management decisions. The
level of specificity in a given recommenda-
tion depends on the person using the infor-
D. T. Walters and D. A. Mortensen are assistant
professors, C. A. Francis is a professor,- and R. W.
Eltnore is an associate professor in the Department
of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln,
68583-09)5. J. W, King is an associate professor in
the Department of Agricultural Communications,
University of Nebraska, Lincoln., Published as Jour-
nal; Series Paper, No. 9013, Agricultural Research
Division,, University' of Nebraska,^
mation and changes with the user's chang-
ing values.
Knowing that our research data from a
variety trial, a nitrogen response experi-
ment, or a herbicide screening test will
reach many audiences, we have to. package
the information hi such a way that it will be
interpreted as correctly as possible; by a
range of people with differing interests,
needs,, and levels of understanding. This, is
not an easy task. Our experience with the
types of variation that occur within fields,
among fields and locations, and over years
makes us cautious in extrapolating results
from one set of conditions to others.
What recommendations are appropriate to
a wide range or a narrow range of condi-
tions? Do some technologies have wider ap-
plications than others? How do production
situations differ, and do these differences in-
fluence the application of a given technol-
ogy? Answers to these questions emphasize
the need for specificity and a holistic ap-
proach to research. Specificity can. ensure
sustainability through adoption of the most
appropriate existing technologies.
Changing values and specificity
The ways in which each person looks at
a crop depend upon his or her unique relar
tipnship with that crop and can be described
along a spatial or geographic continuum..
National policymakers are concerned about
the performance of the entire crop in. the
country each year, for example, in terms of
export earnings or foo.d prices., Specificity
of a, given legislator's, interest extends to how
we,}}: thfe crop. pe.rforrned in his: or her dis-
trict. At the other end of the spectrum, the;
person most interested in the individual
plant may be the research scientist wha is,
examining gene segregation patterns or
translocatipri of radioactive tracers in a.
physiology study. The farmer is most con-
cerned about how to make decisions, based
on the best available information, for his: or
her own farm. These decisions, will be fine-
tuned; to individual fields on that farm and
only rarely to, specific sites, within a given
field.
Formulation, conduct, and evaluation of
research intended to, generate specific ree-
ommendatipns must be responsive to chang-^
ing value criteria by which agricultural spe-
cificity is measured. There is an. increasing
concern about-narrow measurement meth-
ods (bushels/acre or net profit/acre), that do
not reflect the sustainability of a system.
HOW dp we measure production per unit of
a renewable or nonrenewable resource, per
unit of environmental impact? Qur best
minds would, dp well tp explore these alter-
natives, to ensure, appropriate recommenda-
tions..
Within a, specific; user-group class—agri-
cultural producers—increased specificity of
information, coupled with the adoption of
new evaluation criteria, can result in reduced,
inputs in agricultural, production. Research
into "prescription" or field-specific recpm-
mendatipnS; has, yielded promising results.
Weed scientists researching and implement-
ing economic threshold criteria into weed.
management decision-making have found
ways to reduce herbicide use- in grain-crop,
production. Such, art approach requires that;
Janujary-FejDruaryj 19,9,0? 55;
-------
weed control recommendations implement-
ed. If the weed infestation for a specific field
is below the economic threshold—that is, the
weed population at which cost of control
equals anticipated loss attributable to
weeds—no herbicide treatment is recom-
mended (.?). Such a management approach
promises to reduce significantly the 340
million pounds of herbicides applied annual-
ly in the United States.
Farmer-targeted decision-making pro-
grams are under development at several land
grant universities around the country (9).
And in West Germany, where economic
threshold criteria are used to regulate small
grain weed control programs, significant
reductions in herbicide use have been
documented (77). Under development are
more elaborate weed control decision-
making tools that rely on field-specific weed
sccdbank and seedling data to arrive at con-
trol strategies (5). Results indicate that
significant reduction in herbicide use will
result if such field-specific information
about pest populations is considered.
Nitrogen is one of the most costly and
energy-intensive inputs in row-crop produc-
tion. Nitrogen fertilizer recommendations,
Geographic or spatial domains across
which recommendations or decisions are
made for specific production practices.
based upon regional differences in climate
and soils, vary from state to state. Often the
differences in nitrogen recommendations are
as abrupt as the state boundaries.
In Nebraska, nitrogen recommendations
are based upon years of statewide fertilizer
calibration studies. These recommendations
are summarized in algorithms that address
the nitrogen requirements of individual
crops, as well as the diversity in manage-
ment practices that influence nitrogen
supply, such as tillage, irrigation, or crop
rotation. Incorporated in these algorithms
are variables specific to the field in ques-
tion and to the management history of the
farm. Variables include the level of residual
soil nitrate nitrogen and the yield goal of the
individual producer. These variables add
field specificity to the nitrogen recommen-
dation and also demonstrate the essential
role the producer plays in deciding the level
of nitrogen to apply.
Extension efforts to promote residual
nitrate testing and to educate farmers about
the importance of realistic yield goals can
result in substantial gains in farm profit-
ability through reductions in unnecessary
fertilizer nitrogen inputs. Concurrently, they
can reduce the negative environmental im-
pact of nitrogen on groundwater supplies.
Often, adapting specific technologies
DOMAIN
INTERESTED INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP
All U.S. Crop Fields: Policy Makers, Multinational and National
Agricultural Corporations
Multistate Regions: State Policy Makers, Regional Companies
State:
District:
County:
Municipality:
University Scientists, State Extension
Specialists, State and Regional
Agricultural Companies
District Scientists, Extension Specialists
Consulting Firms and Resource Managers
County Extension Staff and
Consulting Firms
County Extension Staff, Local Buisnesses
Individual Farm: Farmer (highest concern)
Individual Field-' Farmer (moderate concern)
Within Individual Field: Farmer (very low concern)
Individual Plant: Basic Biologist
across broad regional boundaries is com-
pelled by changes in public attitude, signify-
ing a change in values. Fertilizer nitrogen
management is now being regulated by law
in the Central Platte Valley of Nebraska,
where nitrate contamination of groundwater
has reached a level unacceptable to the pub-
lic (8). Residual soil nitrate as a basis for
nitrogen recommendations has been in use
for several decades in the more arid regions
of the United States. Here, the potential for
leaching of nitrogen is much lower than in
regions with higher rainfall (72). With the
energy crisis in the 1970s and, more recent-
ly, the public concern over groundwater con-
tamination by nitrogen, residual soil nitrate
testing is gaining interest in the more humid
eastern United States. As a result, new and
innovative techniques of using this technol-
ogy are being explored (70).
In choosing an appropriate crop variety,
the producer draws on a range of personal
experiences and other sources of technical
information. The producer's immediate con-
cern is how well the chosen crop variety will
perform on his or her farm in the current
year. University agronomists in charge of
uniform testing want to collect unbiased in-
formation from each district and from
around the state, whereas university plant
breeders are involved in development of
germplasm adapted to the range of condi-
tions found in their state. Commercial
breeders in smaller companies can focus on
the unique conditions in their region and
select for specific adaptation to that area,
and breeders in larger national companies
want to provide varieties that have high
yields across as wide an area as possible.
Recommendations as to which varieties to
plant depend upon where data were col-
lected, levels of management used, and who
conducts and interprets the test results.
Growers have to assimilate information from
all of these public and private sources on
specific concerns, such as yield, percent
moisture at harvest, standability, yield in
moisture-stressed environments, and stand
establishment in reduced tillage. Both public
and commercial agronomists are addressing
these concerns, and they must be considered
in local recommendations.
A systems approach to research
The examples mentioned emphasize ways
in which field-specific recommendations
can optimize a component of a farmer's pro-
duction system. For the most part, these ap-
plied technologies have developed within
discipline-oriented research programs. The
existing structure for problem-solving in
academic institutions is discipline-based and
generally reductionist in approach.
56 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
As such, it becomes constrained by these
disciplinary boundaries and the breadth of
the individual researcher. Interactions of
other undefined subsystems within the study
area may remain untested because of the in-
experience of the researcher. Conversely,
potentially confounding variables may be
eliminated to reduce the problem to simple,
testable hypotheses.
Applied research conducted under this ap-
proach has resulted in enormous strides in
our agricultural productivity, as witnessed
by the food surplus in this country. Adapta-
tion of technological advances from experi-
ment station to farm, however, is often
delayed because of the time required to in-
terpret and integrate research results before
using them in a wide range of dissimilar
conditions on the farm (24).
The globalization of economies and the
environmental and political impacts of our
agricultural production systems on both
rural and urban populations require that new
technologies be conceived and researched
in a holistic manner. This system perspec-
tive must be taken when solving agricultural
problems because the producer has to inte-
grate these technologies into an entire pro-
duction system. Increases in productivity
have not always translated into improved
economy of the farm household. Optimiz-
ing one component is not satisfactory;
rather, the entire production system must be
studied.
This approach must examine the variety
of factors that alter specific components of
the production complex, including the im-
pact of introduced technologies on national
agricultural policy, and vice versa (1, 7).
The concept of specificity must become a
priority in our national agricultural research
strategy if we are to remain competitive as
a nation (4).
Conceptualizing, studying, and imple-
menting research that is specific and yet
holistic is a formidable challenge. Although
continuing to bolster output by solely in-
creasing inputs is largely considered unreal-
istic, new research approaches will be neces-
sary for redirection. There are many institu-
tional and interpersonal barriers to the inter-
disciplinary activities necessary for success-
ful systems research (6, 13, 15). Examina-
tion of comprehensive management systems
by conventional agricultural scientists, so-
ciologists, and economists will require inter-
disciplinary teams capable of communicat-
ing in a common language and bridging
disciplinary boundaries to create manage-
ment models specific to the needs of the
targeted client group.
The advantages of system modelling are
many. Requiring formulation of subsystem
models to incorporate interactions, system
Deep soil nitrate-nitrogen sampling
is one example of an activity that results
in specific information for farm
management decisions.
models naturally form the stimulus to bridge
disciplinary research efforts. Validation and
sensitivity analysis of models provide a
guide to research and focus resources toward
the research efforts that are most critical to
the model's success and utility. Model build-
ing on an interdisciplinary base can provide
the key to constructing comprehensive re-
gional management models that lend them-
selves to planning, education, rapid technol-
ogy transfer, and specificity.
Conclusions
Agricultural producers are flooded with
production information from a multitude of
sources. Much of this information is generic,
with varying degrees of relevance to an indi-
vidual's production system. Implementation
of such generic information may not permit
the optimization of crop production systems.
As indicated in the examples cited herein,
implementation of farm- and field-specific
recommendations allows the producer to
adjust his or her practices consistent with
the best available technology, and it can, in
turn, reduce occurrences of fertilizer and
pesticide over-application. The technology
does exist to attain sustainability and in-
crease profitability.
Because the farmer is an integrator, rec-
ommendations must not be confined to
single disciplines, but instead must consider
the many facets and interactions in the pro-
duction system. As researchers, we must re-
main cognizant that our research results are
subject to interpretation by a variety of in-
dividual user groups. As such, these results
are evaluated under different value strictures.
The complexity of the agricultural ecosys-
tem and the diversity of individual goals re-
quire integration of information on the part
of the client but, more important, a system
of information that is itself integrative.-For
agriculture to remain sustainable, decisions
must be made that are beneficial for society
as a whole, in terms of environment and food
quality, as well as profitable for the client.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Ames, D. R. 1989. Need for integrated livestock
management. In A. Weiss [ed.] Climate and Ag-
riculture: Systems Approaches to Decision Mak-
ing. Dept. Agr. Meteorology, Univ. Nebr., Lin-
coln, pp 14-19.
2. Bawden, R. J., R. D. Macadam, R. J. Packham,
and I. Valentine. 1984. System thinking and prac-
tices in the education of agriculturalists. Agr.
Systems 13: 205-225.
3. Coble, H. D. 1985. The development and imple-
mentation of economic thresholds for soybeans.
In R. E. Frisbie and P. L. Adkisson [eds.] Inte-
grated Pest Management on Major Agricultural
Systems. Texas A&M Univ., College Station, pp
295-307.
4. Holt, D. A. 1987. A competitiveR&Dstrategy
for U.S. agriculture. Science 237: 1,401-1,402.
5. King, R. P., D. W. Lybecker, E. E. Schweizer,
andR. L. Zimdahl. 1986. Bioeconomic model-
ing to simulate weed control strategies for con-
tinuous corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 34: 972-979.
6. MacRae, R. J., S. B. Hill, J. Henning, and G.
R. Mehuys. 1989. Agricultural science and sus-
tainable agriculture: A review of the existing
scientific barriers to sustainable food produc-
tion and potential solutions. Biol. Agr. & Hort
6: 173-219.
7. Marcotte, P., and L. E. Swanson. 1987. The
disarticulation of farming systems research with
national agricultural systems: Bringing FSR back
in. Agr. Admin. Ext. 27: 75-91.
8. McCabe, D. 1987. This NRD will impose fer-
tilizer regulations. Nebraska Farmer, (Oct.): 18.
9. Mortensen, D. A., and H. D. Coble. 1989.
Bioeconomic decision-making models for weed
control. Weed Tech. (In review).
10. National Fertilizer Development Center. 1989.
Soil nitrate testing workshop: Research and ex-
tension needs in humid regions of the United
States. Proc., Workshop, Nat. Pert. Develop.
Center, Tenn. Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals,
Ala. 7 pp.
11. Niemann, P. 1986. Mehrjahrige anwedung des
schadensschellen prinzeps bei der unkraut-
bekampfung auf einem landwirtschaftlichen
betrieb. Proc., Eur. Weed Res. Soc. Symp.,
Economic Weed Control. European Weed Res.
Soc., London, Eng. pp. 385-392.
12. Olson, R. A. 1984. Nitrogen use in dryland
farming under semiarid conditions. In R. D.
Hauck [ed.] Nitrogen in Crop Production. Am.
Soc. Agron., Madison, Wise. pp. 335-348.
13. Rawlins, S. L. 1988. Systems science and agri-
cultural sustainability. National Forum: The Phi
Kappa Phi J. 68(3): 19-22.
14. Ruttan, V. W, G. W. Norton, and R. R.
Schoeneck. 1980. Soybean yield trends in Min-
nesota. Minn. Agr. Economist (July) 621. pp.
4-7.
15. Weiss, A., and J. G. Rpbb. 1989. Challenge for
the future: Incorporating systems into the agri-
cultural infrastructure. J. Production Agr. 2:
287-289. D
January-February 1990 57
-------
Farmers and university researchers in four
mldwestern states offer their views on what
direction research efforts should take in
devising sustainable production systems
Research needs
for sustainable
agriculture
•sq':;'IFi::
By James J. Vorst
SUSTAINABLE agriculture is extremely
difficult to define. Each person has
their own perspective on its defini-
tion and may prefer such terms as reduced-
input, regenerative, or alternative agriculture
to describe our ideas. The difficulty arises
from the fact that we are defining a value
or mindset rather than a prescription or
specified set of practices to follow. There-
fore, on a higher level, people may be talk-
ing about the same concept, although their
methods of approaching this concept are
different. Sustainable agriculture means dif-
ferent things to different people.
Many farmers have definite ideas on what
needs to be done to make agriculture more
sustainable and how to make reduced-input
farming methods more productive and prof-
itable. However, because of the diversity
inherent in agriculture and because farmers
have no unified voice, their ideas on the
direction agriculture should take and what
is needed to get these ideas implemented
often is not considered. On the other hand,
researchers at land grant institutions conduct
research encouraged by their academic dis-
ciplines. Research is often shaped by the
monies they can attract and particularly by
the guidelines inherent in private grants and
James J, Ibrst is a professor in the Agronomy
Department, Purdue University, Hfaf Lafayette,
Indiana 47907.
state or federally funded projects. Direct
input into research programs from farmers
has been minimal or comes from farmers
who have taken a more conventional ap-
proach in their operations.
Workshops or conferences in which farm-
ers and university researchers and adminis-
trators openly discuss needs and directions
of agriculture are excellent vehicles for fos-
tering communication and reducing miscon-
ceptions. The university research system is
responsive to the needs of agriculture, but
it must be informed of these needs. While
lack of funding may continue to be a prob-
lem in sustainable agricultural research, one
method to increase funding is for farmers
to let legislators know of their needs. Be-
cause the goal of all agriculturalists is to im-
prove the food and fiber production system,
discussion and debate on all facets of agri-
culture among everyone involved in the sys-
tem is necessary if long-term, sustainable
agriculture is to be achieved.
In an effort to provide a forum for com-
munication between farmers, university ad-
ministrators, and researchers, four work-
shops were conducted between November
1987 and August 1988 by the Midwest Tech-
nology Development Institute and the Ro-
dale Institute in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
and Ohio. With financial support from the
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, there
Lowell Georgia
were 238 participants in the four meetings.
Attending were 127 farmers and 62 univer-
sity personnel. The remaining participants
consisted of government employees and
agribusiness people.
As with so many issues, the question of
whether the issues are real or perceived is
widely debated. However, the issues of sus-
tainable agriculture and the future of farm-
ing was reflected by the perceptions of
fanners who participated in these work-
shops, and their actions on the land are
based on those perceptions.
Understandably, these farmers are con-
cerned about both the long-term and imme-
diate future of agriculture. And they are just
as concerned about making a profit and im-
proving the quality of life for their families
and the general public as are their counter-
parts who use high-input, chemically based
systems. These farmers feel, however, that
the type of information they need is either
unavailable or so difficult to access that they
cannot find the necessary help for solving
everyday production problems. Perhaps part
of the problem lies in the fact that agriculture
is in an era of phenomenal and rapid change;
communication between researchers, the
Extension Service, and farmers representing
a variety of production systems needs to be
strengthened. Many of the farmers' concerns
are being researched and published in pro-
58 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
fessional journals, only to be read by other
professionals instead of being disseminated
in forms readily accessible to the farmer.
Successful systems
Sixteen farmers who are now using some
type of reduced input or components of sus-
tainable production systems explained their
philosophy and the general characteristics
of their operations during the workshops.
While there were significant differences in
the management styles of the operations,
each of these farmers expressed the opinion
that they needed to adapt their management
styles to a more sustainable-oriented ap-
proach to production economics. Economic
sustainability was the major concern.
A summary of the major components of
their management systems included the fol-
lowing basic characteristics: Ridge tillage
and use of cover crops werp an integral part
of most production systems. All were in-
terested in reducing the use of pesticides and
commercial fertilizers and were using le-
gumes in crop rotations and/or green ma-
nure cover crops as a nutrient source. Main-
taining soil tilth with emphasis on organic
matter was important, and using green ma-
nure crops in combination with reduced
tillage to help improve soil tilth and was an
essential feature of their management sys-
tems. Another key component of concern
was the necessity of diversification for main-
taining a sustainable production system.
The concerns of farmers attending the
conferences ranged from the need for spe-
cific answers to immediate problems to long-
range, more philosophical questions. The
questions and concerns expressed were cat-
egorized into five main areas: soil fertility,
pest control, alternative enterprises, cover
crops and alternative nitrogen sources, and
new technologies.
Soil fertility and ecology
Plant nutrition. How much nitrogen is
retained in the soil from various cover crops,
and what impacts do coyer crops have on
the carbon/nitrogen ratio? How do we best
manage crops for optimum nitrogen produc-
tion and availability, and is it advantageous
to add nitrogen when growing nitrogen-
fixing crops in the system? How should fer-
tilizer application methods, forms, rates, and
timing for reduced-input systems be modi-
fied from current recommendations? Do
salt-based fertilizers affect soil physical and
chemical conditions, and can the use of
alternative cropping systems increase the
release and availability of soil-borne
nutrients? Increased availability of soil nu-
trients could directly affect fertilizer recom-
mendations by reducing input costs and thus
potentially reducing yields over a longer
time period. If so, just how much can fer-
tilizer rates and yields be reduced before
profit is diminished?
Many new biological products are being
marketed, but finding reliable results on
these products is difficult. What is the
validity of using these products in reduced-
input systems? Can these products be tested
according to manufacturer's recommenda-
tions and be validly compared with other
factors affecting crop growth and nutrition?
Soil testing. Farmers rely heavily on soil
testing to determine plant nutrient needs, but
what is the accuracy of these test results,
especially under reduced-input systems? Is
there an optimum time or method of soil
sampling under reduced-input systems, and
how can plant analysis and tissue-testing
procedures be refined to be more useful to
farmers using reduced-input systems?
Tillage, manure, and sludge application.
While we know that type, timing, and
amount of tillage affect soils and crop pro-
duction differently, the impact of both con-
ventional and reduced tillage systems on soil
tilth, porosity, and water-holding capacity
under a wide range of conditions is not un-
derstood completely. How does the incor-
poration of cover crops affect these factors
and the level of soil organic matter? What
are the most effective tillage systems to use
for optimum weed control in different crops,
and when should this tillage be done? When
is the best time to apply manure in various
cropping systems to obtain maximum bene-
fit? How should manure best be handled,
and to which crops should it be applied to
obtain maximum benefits? How should rates
of manure application be determined for
various types of manure and for different
crops? How can municipal sludge be most
effectively incorporated into a reduced-input
system? How do all of these factors affect
the microbial and invertebrate populations
of the soil, both in conventional and re-
duced-input systems?
Pest control
Making the transition. Many farmers
who would like to make the transition to
reduced-input systems are deterred by pest
problems. What are the greatest pest prob-
lems during transition, and how are these
pests best controlled during transition? What
is the best approach to the transition from
high-input to low-input farming? While the
economic threshold value of some pests
is known, data for many other pests in re-
duced-input systems is lacking. What are the
pest population shifts that occur in transi-
tion, and what causes certain pests to build
up in some locations, whereas in other
seemingly identical situations these pests are
not a problem? In addition to researching the
effects of pesticides on the pest, much more
attention needs to be directed to the long-
term effects of pesticides on the environ-
ment, personal safety, and food and feed
quality. If the level of chemicals used in
agriculture decreases, who will pay for the
research presently being supported by the
agrichemical industry?
Weed control. Weeds remain the primary
pest problem and may be more serious now
than they were 30 years ago. With the large
arsenal of herbicides available, why do we
still have a serious weed problem? Is this
because of changes in cultural practices or
because of pesticide-induced changes in the
soil environment or weed species? A better
understanding of the ecology of weeds, her-
bicide carryover in different and specific
environments, and the effect of rescue treat-
ments is needed. How should cultural prac-
tices be modified to best manage weeds, and
how do specific weed control practices fit
into a reduced-input system?
Alternative enterprises
An industry changing. The rapid pace of
social change has created needs that are dif-
ferent from those of a decade ago. These
changes also create a need for different types
of agricultural products. Just as today's
society makes extensive use of products
from soybeans, a new crop 50 years ago, re-
searchers need to be aware of the shifts in
societal demands and how agriculture can
safely and efficiently produce the raw ma-
terials for new products. The adaptation of
biotechnology should be expanded, not only
to increase production of plant and animal
enterprises, but also to enhance the quality
of agricultural products. Such questions as
the purported nutritional superiority of
organically produced products and back-
ground levels of toxic substances in all food
products need to be answered. Besides the
need for production information, additional
market research and development is needed.
How does one develop or gain access to a
market for low-volume, high-value crops,
and what are the trade-offs for these types
of operations when compared with produc-
tion of conventionally grown crops and
livestock?
Crops. New or alternative crops are not
being grown in many locations for a variety
of reasons. Ecologically, these crops tend to
be site-specific, and many may be suited to
land not well adapted to row-crop produc-
tion. A broadened ecological data base for
specific crops adapted to specific niches,
especially marginal land, is needed. Where
January-February 1990 59
-------
docs one get information on production,
adaptation, and management of alternative
crops? What management strategies are
most successful for low-acreage, high-value
crops, and how is this information obtained?
Arc there additional alternative uses for
traditional crops that would increase demand
and thus increase both price and market?
Livestock. Additional research on effec-
tive production systems for smaller scale,
low-input livestock systems is needed. How
can livestock be produced using fewer phar-
maceuttcals? For swine, what are the source
and best methods of, preventing pseudo-
rabies? Arc there safe and effective bio-
logical methods of fly control? How can an
effective certification system of chemical-
free, low-fat beef and pork be developed?
What are the best management methods for
intensive grazing systems? How can feed
grains with higher protein content be de-
veloped?
Cover crops, nitrogen sources
There are many questions about cover
crop usage. Reduced-input systems frequent-
ly involve the use of cover crops bodi to con-
serve soil and as a source of nutrients, but
arc there additional benefits that have not
been researched? How do cover crops fit
into reduced-input systems? What is the net
economic return from using cover crops in
reduced-input cropping systems, and when
is their use economically advantageous?
Which cover crops are best for specific ap-
plications, and is it feasible for any of the
hundreds of native species to be used as
cover crops? Are there unknown allelopathic
effects of cover crops that could be used ad-
vantageously in reduced-input systems to re-
place herbicides? Are there allelopathic
effects on crops, and if so, how can they be
avoided? Should an additional crop breeding
objective be to improve characteristics of
ewer crops that would enhance the produc-
tivity and profits of reduced-input systems?
How docs one best control or kill a cover
crop in a reduced-input system? Soil mois-
ture depletion due to cover crops can be a
problem, but this problem varies with such
factors as soil type, rainfall, and succeeding
crops. Cover crop modelling genetic selec-
tion efforts that take these variables into ac-
count need to be expanded. Cooperative ef-
forts in cover crop modelling, as well as
other areas, across the Midwest would ap-
pear quite beneficial.
New technologies
The agricultural research system has an
almost unlimited potential for technological
and scientific development. However, what
is appropriate technology, and which ave-
nues of science should be followed to secure
the future of a sustainable agriculture? The
environmental and social aspects of techno-
logical advancements need much closer
scrutiny in the future. How do we best ob-
tain this type of information? How influen-
tial should consumer preferences be in rela-
tion to potential environmental damage in-
flicted by adaptation of a new technology?
Does present research and development tend
to favor one segment of farmers at the ex-
pense of others, and if so, is this necessary,
or even harmful, to our rural communities?
Are reduced-input strategies receiving as
much attention from research scientists, ex-
tension, and teaching personnel as conven-
tional strategies? Is there a policy that deter-
mines research direction and assures input
from both conventional and reduced-input
farmers?
Agricultural research
A summary of responses provided by ad-
ministrators and researchers from the land
grant universities in each of the four states
provides a perspective on the agricultural
research picture. The issues addressed cen-
tered around the mission of agricultural ex-
periment stations, funding priorities, and
present and future directives of agricultural
research. The following general overview of
experiment station research constraints and
directions provided a basis for increased
communication between the farmers and
university personnel.
When compared to industry-conducted
research, the goals of university research
tend to be less product-oriented and more
management-oriented. Monetary and envi-
ronmental considerations are creating in-
creased demand for research in sustainable
agriculture, and each of the universities rep-
resented is already conducting research that
directly relates to sustainable agriculture.
Some major factors affecting the type of
research conducted include funding prior-
ities, the expertise and interests of the re-
search staff, and research priorities on the
national level.
The three major funding sources are state
and federal appropriations and grants re-
ceived from private sources. While actual
percentage breakdowns vary from state to
state, federal and state appropriations tend
to be the major source of research funding.
It is difficult to quickly change research di-
rections and priorities because most research
resources (experimental plots, laboratories,
and scientists) are supported by funding
from public or private sources and are com-
mitted to research with specific objectives
in mind.
While most research on sustainable agri-
culture presently is being funded by public
sources, there are examples of privately
funded!research being conducted that relate
directly to sustainable agriculture. Two nota-
ble examples include work being done on
genetically engineered pest resistance to re-
duce the need for pesticides and conserva-
tion tillage research. In addition, centers for
sustainable agricultural research are in place
at some universities and in the planning
stage at several others.
Viewpoints expressed by university re-
searchers on farming systems and environ-
ment-oriented research included the impor-
tance qf a systems approach to research and
knowledge of the interactions of production
components on the environment. Not all ag-
ricultural chemicals have the same ecologi-
cal impacts, and not all environmental con-
tamination is due to agriculture. Environ-
mental contaminants include pesticides from
both on- and off-farm use, nitrates in sur-
face and groundwater, sediment, and bac-
teria. There are trade-offs that must be con-
sidered between the beneficial and harmful
effects of using any production input. While
the elimination of chemicals from some
farming systems is possible, chemicals will
continue to be used in agriculture, and re-
search efforts in the university setting will
continue to focus on management practices
that provide the greatest beneficial trade-off
for sustaining a healthy environment and
enough profits to make farming economical-
ly sustainable.
For a farming system to be sustainable it
must show a profit. Many factors, includ-
ing costs of inputs and prices received, de-
termine the economic feasibility of sustain-
able agriculture. Possible options for reduc-
ing input costs are the increased use of me-
chanical weed control; alternative methods
of maintaining nitrogen, phosphorus, and
potassium levels in the soil; and the elec-
tronic monitoring of planting, spraying, and
other agricultural processes. Some of these
new ideas are relatively easy to undertake,
such as tuning up fertilizer programs, while
others are so complicated that some farmers
will never acquire the information and skill
to successfully adapt them. In addition, lo-
cation plays a role. Some ideas are more ap-
plicable in some areas than others, and some
systems, because of the commodities pro-
duced, need to be close to their markets. In
addition, the social, community, and family
effects of changes in agriculture must be
considered. Some social scientists are cap-
able of researching these effects, thereby
providing the public with clearer insights
when deciding on the policies to adopt and
the levels of risk that are acceptable with any
food production system. D
60 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
LISA
Some early
results
By J. Patrick Madden
and Paul F. O'Connell
THE U.S. Department of Agriculture's
research and education grants pro-
gram, known as Low-Input/Sustain-
able Agriculture (LISA), responds to an
emerging interest by many formers for a
more cost-effective and environmentally
benign agriculture. There is growing public
concern about groundwater contamination,
pesticide residue in foods, high cost of
modern-day agriculture, soil health, and
lack of crop diversity for wildlife habitat.
LISA research and education projects are
designed to help formers substitute manage-
ment, scientific information, and on-farm
resources for some of the purchased inputs
they currently depend upon for their farming
enterprises.
The LISA program also has responded to
a congressional mandate to involve a broad-
er spectrum of the agricultural community
in administering the program and carrying
out the projects. Innovative methods are
being used to enable scientists, educators,
and farmers to work as teams in selecting
projects to be funded, setting research goals,
designing and implementing the projects,
and devising strategies to ensure that the
findings are made available to producers and
other audiences.
The LISA program is administered
through host institutions in four regions: the
University of Vermont for the northeastern
region, University of Nebraska for the north
central region, University of Georgia for the
southern region, and University of Califor-
nia for the western region. LISA project pro-
posals are reviewed in each region by com-
mittees that include farmers, state experi-
ment station researchers, educators in the
Cooperative Extension Service, Soil Con-
servation Service (SCS) personnel, Agricul-
tural Research Service (ARS) scientists, and
others.
Scores of farmers who are successfully
J. Patrick Madden is coordinator for LISA field
operations, Madden Associates, Glendale, California
91209. PaulF. O'Connell is deputy administrator of
the Cooperative State Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. An
earlier version of this article appeared in Agricultural
Libraries Information Notes, National Agricultural
Library, Beltsville, Maryland.
January-February 1990 61
-------
using low-input, sustainable farming
methods of pest control and soil fertility
management have become involved active-
ly as members of project teams in prepar-
ing LISA project proposals. On-farm ex-
periments are being designed and carried out
by these project teams, using scientific
methods for setting up treatment plots and
measuring results, such as crop yields, soil
conditions, and the populations of pests and
their natural enemies. These on-farm studies
are essential to the success of the program
in that they bring together the findings ob-
tained from laboratory and experiment sta-
tion research. Together these studies are
beginning to provide the reliable, scientific
information producers must have to design
a profitable strategy for reducing a farm's
dependence on certain kinds of off-farm
inputs.
Although the LISA program has received
a total of only SI2.8 million for its first three
years of operation, an amazingly large and
diverse array of scientists, educators, farm-
ers, and other interested persons in the pub-
lie and private sectors haw already become
involved. Despite the short time it has been
in existence, meaningful results are arising.
Genesis of LISA
The LISA program was created in re-
sponse to the 1985 Food Security Act, Sub-
title C, Agriculture Productivity Research.
In 1986, USDA policymakers began discus-
sions with farmers and other proponents of
farming systems that relied less on synthetic
chemicals and other off-farm purchased in-
puts, They visited the Rodale Research Cen-
ter near Emmaus, Pennsylvania, and toured
Dick and Sharon Thompson's form near
Boonc, Iowa. They attended a conference of
interested scientists, farmers, foundations,
and public agencies in Racine, Wisconsin,
and held informal discussions with many ex-
perts and practitioners of various low-input,
alternative farming methods.
Those policymakers found farmers were
looking for ways to increase their net return
while reducing risks and achieving greater
compatibility between environmental and
production goals. They also found that a
handful of dedicated university and private-
sector researchers were studying scientific
components essential to the success of these
low-input fanning systems, despite extreme-
ly limited funding. It became abundantly
clear that federal funding was urgently need-
ed to support private and public research and
educational efforts to enhance the produc-
tivity and profitability of low-input forming
methods and systems.
Throughout 1987, congressional hearings
were held. The program received its initial
$3.9 million appropriation in December
1987. In January 1988, the secretary of agri-
culture issued a memorandum establishing
departmental policy regarding alternative
(now termed low-input/sustainable) farming
systems: "The Department encourages re-
search and education programs and activities
that provide farmers with a wide choice of
cost effective fanning systems including
systems that minimize or optimize the use
of purchased inputs and that minimize en-
vironmental hazards. The Department also
encourages efforts to expand the use of such
systems."
The LISA program has been organized
and directed by the Cooperative State Re-
search Service (CSRS), with the full coop-
eration of the Extension Service and other
USDA agencies, especially SCS, ARS, and
National Agricultural Library. The program
has unfolded rapidly. Whereas it normally
takes at least 12 to 18 months to establish
a new federal program of this kind, in just
6 months a set of administrative guidelines
were developed, technical committees and
administrative councils were formed in each
of the four regions, hundreds of project pro-
posals were submitted and reviewed, and the
first round of projects were approved for
funding. These projects encompass a wide
range of subject matter germane to low-
input, sustainable agriculture.
The LISA program responded to the con-
gressional intent regarding involvement of
a wide range of public and private organi-
zations. Specifically, the program has the
meaningful involvement of farmers, inter-
disciplinary cooperation in research activ-
ities, and functional integration of research
and extension, and a significant share of
funds has been allocated to 13 private
research and educational organizations.
Of 371 projects submitted to the four
regional host institutions, the review com-
mittees determined that 130 were acceptable
in terms of their relevance to LISA goals,
appropriate methods, and feasible plans for
making the findings readily usable to farm-
ers. Of the 130 projects, the best 53 were
selected for funding. Several similar pro-
posals were combined to form a total of 49
projects. If more funding had been available,
an additional 77 projects would have been
funded. The total cost of fully funding the
130 acceptable proposals in 1988 would have
been $16.6 million, roughly five times the
amount available.
In fiscal years 1989 and 1990, Congress
appropriated $4.45 million for LISA, a 14
percent increase over 1988. The current level
of funding is an average of $1.99 per farm;
it amounts to less than one-thousandth of the
annual sales of pesticides in the United
States. During the first two years, a total of
802 proposals or pre-proposals were submit-
ted for review; 78 were funded. Three of the
four regional selection committees (north-
eastern, north central, and southern) will
complete their 1990 project selection and
funding allocations by June. In view of the
limited funding, the western region commit-
tee has opted not to call for new proposals
in 1990, but to continue support for existing
projects.
Most of the LISA projects are long-term
studies requiring several years development
and replication before scientifically mean-
ingful results can be obtained. A few of the
projects have added to on-going studies, by
providing resources for additional treat-
ments, more measurements of soil and bio-
logical attributes, economic evaluation, and
more effective means of getting the findings
out to fanners. Other projects are of a short-
term nature, such as preparation of video
tapes demonstrating such methods as ridge
tillage and composting, preparation of com-
puter software, or other approaches for pre-
senting known findings and forthcoming
results in ways that will be readily usable
to farmers and other clients.
Field crop production. The farm press
has begun featuring stories of farmers who
are using low-input methods successfully.
For example, in a Farm Journal article about
Don Elston of Ohio and Joe Federer of In-
diana, Federer said his move to low-input
methods was motivated by his concern about
possible effects of chemicals on human
health. Using such practices as crop rota-
tions, cover crops, cultivation, and rotary
hoeing, Elston and Federer reduced their
fertilizer costs by $17 and $34 per acre,
respectively.
Farmer awareness of low-input oppor-
tunities is also increased by hands-on ex-
perience. Thousands of farmers each year
attend field days on farms with demonstra-
tion plots comparing low-input and conven-
tional methods. For example, during 1988,
some 900 visitors to Dick and Sharon
Thompson's farm saw side-by-side compar-
isons of conventional and low-input farm-
ing practices. Such methods as ridge tillage,
legume-based rotations, and an integrated
crop-livestock system produced the highest
oat yield in Story County, Iowa—142 bushels
per acre. Their corn and soybean yields
were 27 and 17 bushels above county aver-
ages, respectively. The methods used by the
Thompsons result in substantial reductions
in cost and soil erosion as compared with
conventional farming practices in their area.
Several projects funded by LISA are pro-
viding a scientific basis for understanding
the productivity of low-input systems. For
example, experimental plots comparing con-
ventional and low-input crop rotations were
62 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
started by Larry King in 1986 at North
Carolina State University. With LISA fund-
ing, his study was expanded to include sev-
eral additional disciplines. The additional
tests and treatments included investigation
of weed management strategies, such as al-
lelopathy; natural weed control; soil mois-
ture relations; soil insects, nematodes, and
microbiology; cycling of nitrogen, carbon,
and phosphorus; economics; and extension.
The first three years of the project were
characterized as summer droughts. Johnson-
grass infestation was extraordinarily heavy.
Because of the drought, all crop yields were
below normal. The lowest corn yields were
found in continuous corn plots. Somewhat
higher yields were found in the low-input
plots, but the highest corn yields were ob-
tained using the conventional (pesticide-
based) crop rotations.
Costs and net returns from corn, soy-
beans, grain sorghum, and wheat were cal-
culated for each treatment in 1986 and 1987.
Net returns were higher in virtually all of
the low-input plots than in the conventional
plots. Because of the drought, the net returns
for most of the enterprises were negative.
Conventional management in this experi-
ment is no-till production, with heavy re-
liance on herbicides. Low-input methods
rely primarily on crop rotations and me-
chanical cultivation for weed control and on
legumes for nitrogen. Production cost on the
conventional corn plots in 1987 was $218 per
acre; the low-input methods required $128.
Because yields were so low, the conventional
corn plots incurred a net loss of $171 per
acre, compared with a net loss of $95 in the
low-input plots. The most dramatic contrast
was in soybeans during 1986. Net return
from the conventional soybean plots aver-
aged a loss of $26, compared with a profit
of $47 per acre under low-input manage-
ment. As additional years of data are ac-
cumulated, this study will provide increas-
ingly definitive conclusions about the prof-
its and risks of low-input farming methods
in this part of North Carolina.
The Spray Brothers farm in Ohio is 720
acres, with a beef herd of 40 to 50 head.
They have used no herbicides, lime, or fer-
tilizers on their farm since 1971. Nonethe-
less, their crop yields are above county aver-
ages: corn, 32 percent above average; soy-
beans, 40 percent; wheat, 5 percent; oats,
22 percent. Clover hay yield is 6 tons per
acre (no county average for comparison).
The Sprays receive premium "organic"
prices for most of their crops and some of
their beef.
Another illustration is the Sabot Hill farm
near Richmond, Virginia, operated by Sandy
Fisher. The farm is 3,480 acres, half of
which is forest. Fisher has about 500 head
of beef cattle. Over the years, johnsongrass
has been a major problem in production of
corn and soybeans, his primary cash crops.
Johnsongrass has exhibited resistance to her-
bicides, requiring higher costs for chemical
weed control, but with decreasing effec-
tiveness. Fisher shifted from chemical con-
trol to a cultural practice of bverseeding his
johnsongrass-infested fields with legumes.
After harvesting hay crops from these fields
for two or three years, he found that the
johnsongrass becomes depleted, so he can
resume planting row crops without using
herbicides. As a result of this change in
practices, his herbicide cost have fallen
$20,000 per year, and he is now achieving
better weed control.
A team of scientists at South Dakota State
University started a crop rotation study in
1985 comparing conventional and low-input
crop rotations. The conventional options be-
ing tested in this on-going study include a
choice of ridge tillage or minimum tillage,
with farming systems typical of two loca-
tions, the Watertown and Madison areas (2).
When this study became a LISA project in
1988, the scope of investigations was ex-
panded to include whole-farm studies on
several cooperating farms, biological con- |
trol of pests, nutrient cycling, and soil prop- <§
erties. Economists on the project team have ^
adapted the experimental findings from the !
first three years to develop preliminary esti-
mates of the net returns that would be earned
by a typical 640-acre family farm with 540
tillable acres.
During the drought of 1988, the only sys-
tems tested in this South Dakota study that
were estimated to earn a profit were the low-
input systems. The low-input farming system
for the Watertown area was estimated to earn
a profit of about $4,900, using a crop rota-
tion of oats, alfalfa, soybeans, and spring
wheat. The simulated farms in this area, us-
ing a conventional rotation (corn, soybeans,
and spring wheat) with chemical pesticides
and conventional tillage, incurred a net loss
of about $25,000—a difference of about
$30,000 compared to the low-input system.
The differences in earnings were much
smaller for the Madison area. The low-input
system for this area was estimated to break
even, while the minimum tillage and con-
ventional systems lost about $15,000.
Another study in South Dakota has de-
vised an improved method for corn root-
worm control, which constitutes one of the
largest single insecticide markets in U.S.
agriculture. During 1988, insecticide was ap-
plied to about 35 percent of the corn acreage
in the 10 Corn Belt states, representing a
total of 18.7 million acres. Farmers typically
apply a granular insecticide, usually an or-
ganophosphate, at planting time. This
Researchers examine a soil core from a
conservation-tilled field to study how
such practices affect soil tilth.
granular material is vulnerable to movement
by wind and water erosion, possibly posing
a significant risk to groundwater and sur-
face water. Scientists estimate this material
kills only about 50 percent of the corn root-
worm larvae, which is the stage of the pest
that does the major damage to the roots of
the corn plants. In mid-summer, an aerial
spray of insecticide often is applied to con-
trol the surviving adult corn rootworms.
While this spray is highly effective in kill-
ing corn rootworm adults, it also kills
beneficial species, including natural enemies
of various pests, thus causing secondary
infestations.
In an effort to reduce the environmental
impact and protect water quality risk asso-
ciated with control of corn rootworm, ARS
scientists in South Dakota have devised a
bait that is a starch crystal containing about
two teaspoons per acre of an insecticide, car-
baryl (6). While this is only about 2 per-
cent of the normal dosage, tests in the
laboratory and in field cages under con-
trolled conditions have found that the bait
kills up to 94 percent of the adult corn root-
worms, with no harm to nontarget species.
January-February 1990 63
-------
The bait contains t%vo kinds of semiochem-
icals (behavioral modification chemicals).
The first is an attractant that lures the male
and female adult corn rootworms to find the
starch granules scattered about the field. The
second semiochemical is a feeding stimulant
made from a bitter herb that is delicious to
the corn root worm but repugnant to most
nontarget species, such as birds. Plans are
now being developed for a full-scale field
test of the bait under actual farming condi-
tions in several states.
Fruit production. As part of amultistate
LISA project, scientists at Cornell Univer-
sity have successfully tested a nonpesticide
method of reducing the population of grape
berry moth, a major pest of grapes, by us-
ing phcromone devices to disrupt the mating
behavior of adult males (7). Test plots of
grapes have been established on several
farms, including seven vineyards in 1988.
"Twisties" that emit a pheromone are at-
tached to selected vines. In comparison
plots, the conventional practice of spraying
insecticide two to four times per season was
followed by the farmers. The pheromone
treatment suppressed grape berry moth
populations below the economic threshold
of damage in virtually all plots over a four-
year period, providing results not signifi-
cantly different from the chemically treated
plots. An added advantage of the pheromone
treatment in comparison with the use of
chemical pesticides is that it does not
decimate populations of beneficial species,
including natural enemies of pests. While
these results are encouraging, scientists cau-
tion that more years of testing are required
under a wide range of conditions before the
efficacy of this method can be established.
Steven Pavich and Sons, with 2,200 acres
of vineyard in California and Arizona, pro-
duce more than 30 million pounds of fresh
table grapes a year, about 2.4 percent of the
nation's total production. While 85 percent
of their acreage is certified for organic pro-
duction under California law, only about 40
percent of their grapes are sold under the
Pavieh brand name, meaning they are "or-
ganically grown" and "Nutriclean"-certifled
as pesticide free. The Pavichs apply about
8,000 tons of composted steer manure as the
main source of soil nutrients. They have not
sprayed any synthetic chemical pesticide in
any of their vineyards since 1986. That year,
a newly purchased vineyard in transition was
sprayed once. Their major strategy for pest
control is to maintain a ground cover of
native weeds, grasses, and legumes between
live rows to provide a habitat and food source
for natural enemies of the pests.
Experiments being conducted at a Univer-
sity of Georgia experimental farm are com-
paring three methods of controlling fungus
disease in peaches: organic, low-input, and
conventional (4). The organic treatment,
designed in consultation with Georgia Or-
ganic Growers Association, relies on sulfur
dust to control fungus diseases and various
natural materials, such as rotenone, ryania,
and pyrethrum, to control insects. The con-
ventional treatment consisted of spraying the
entire orchard with synthetic chemical
fungicide and insecticide; in the low-input
option, alternate rows were sprayed rather
than every row. Brown rot was controlled
equally well with all three treatments. Con-
trol of two other pests, catfacing insects and
curculio, was slightly less efficacious in the
organic treatment, with differences ranging
from two to five percent. The low-input
(alternate row) method of spraying provid-
ed slightly better efficacy than conventional
spraying to control a heavy infestation of
plum curculio and a moderate population of
plant bugs.
In another portion of this study, apple or-
chard scouting techniques proved ineffective
in reducing sprays for two fungus diseases,
sooty blotch, and fly speck. Spraying every
two weeks (five applications) between May
15 and August 1 was ineffective in prevent-
ing these diseases. However, a post-harvest
method of removing fungus from the fruit
was effective: 15 minutes soaking in bleach
(0.0525 percent sodium hypochlorite). These
results suggest that fungicide use could be
replaced by post-harvest application of a
rather harmless substance to the fruit.
In experimental plots of strawberries near
Lubbock, Texas, scientists are comparing
conventional chemical fumigation of the soil
with solarization to control nematode pest
populations and weeds (9). Solarization is
a process of covering the soil with two layers
of polyethylene separated by a dead air
space; this allows the sun to heat the soil to
kill pests. Nematode populations were re-
duced 85 to 90 percent by solarization, com-
pared to 90 to 95 percent control using
chemical fumigation. Similar experiments
in eastern Texas found no significant dif-
ferences in nematode populations between
solarization and fumigation treatments.
Yellow nutsedge was suppressed most effec-
tively by solarization.
Conclusions
What many farmers are finding is that
when they adopt low-input methods, in-
cluding careful management, gross returns
decrease slightly, but net returns increase.
For example, in an 11-year study of Illinois
farmers (1976 to 1986), Robert Hornbaker
found that farmers using the highest amounts
of purchased inputs per acre harvested more
bushels but earned less profit per acre com-
pared with farmers using less input per acre.
The study examined data from a sample of
161 farms drawn from the University of Il-
linois farm records system. The farms were
ranked according to their per-acre expen-
ditures for commercial fertilizers and agri-
cultural chemicals. The top one-fourth of the
farms in this ranking were considered the
"high-input" group. The quartile of farms
having the lowest expenditure per acre were
the "low-input" group. In 8 of the 11 years
of his study, Hornbaker found the high-input
group's net income per acre was significant-
ly less than that of the rest of the farms (per-
sonal communication). On average during
the 11-year period, the high-input group had
$37 per acre more gross income than the
low-input group, a difference of 11 percent.
But their net income per acre was $29 less,
a difference of 17.6 percent.
Many other examples could be cited, but
these cases illustrate the kinds of technolo-
gies being developed and tested under the
LISA program. Certainly, not all low-input
methods being tested are proving to be ef-
fective Or profitable. But, in general, the out-
look is optimistic. Particularly encouraging
is the fact that a large and growing number
of scientists and educators at universities and
in extension offices, as well as farmers and
others in the private sector, are forming proj-
ect teams to design and carry out studies to
develop and test low-input farming methods.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Dennehy, T. J., L. C. Clark, C. J. Hoffman, and
J. P. Nyrop. 1989. Pheromone ties provide
excellent control of grape berry moth. Press
release. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y.
2. Dotjbs, Thomas L., and Clarence Mends. 1989.
Economic results of SDSU alternative farming
systems trials: 1988 compared to 1987. So. Dak.
State Univ. Econ. Commentator 270: 3.
3. Economic Research Service. 1989. Agricultural
resources situation and outlook report. AR-13.
U.S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C.
4. Hendrix, F. F., Dan Horton, Norman
McGlohon, and Douglas Pfeiffer. 1989. Report
on low-input agriculture grant on peaches and
apples. Dept. Entomol. and Plant Path., Univ.
Ga.;, Athens.
5. King, Lany D. 1989. Low-input cropping system
experiment. Dept. Soils, N. Car. State Univ.,
Raleigh. 13 pp.
6. Lance, D. R., and G. R. Sutler. Field and
laboratory evaluations of semiochemical-based
baits for managing western corn rootworm
beetles. J. Econ. Entomol. (in review).
7. Madden, Patrick, 1988. LISA 89 guidelines.
Coop. State Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr.,
Washington, D.C. 13 pp.
8. Madden, Patrick, James A. DeShazer, Frederick
R. Magdoff, Neil Pelsue, Charles W. Laughlin,
and,David E. Schlegel. 1989. LISA-88-89—Low-
Input Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education Projects funded in 1988 and 1989.
Coop. State Res. Serv., U.S. Dept., Agr.,
Washington, D.C. 155 pp.
9. Patten, Kim. 1989. Solarization and living mulch
to optimize lowinput production systems for small
fruits. Ann. Rpt., S. Reg. Low-Input Agr., Texas
Agr. Exp. Sta., College Station. 3 pp.
10. Smith, Darrell. 1988. Taking the low road. Farm
Journal (Dec.): 15-17. D
64 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
* t?"-^5'i^f i"2**. ^^^^^'^^^^^^S^^^^^^^Q^S^'^^'^^^yi^^^^X''^^'^- ' "*A ;jww>i?''«t'" ii* »«;_* »ft^
ST5
^
i^^-5
m
Soil Conservation Service/Gene Alexander
Practical applications of low-input
agriculture in the Midwest
By Charles A. Francis
TODAY'S realities for Midwest farmers
include gradual increases in costs
of production inputs and continuing
declines, in real terms, of prices received
for principal feed grain products. Nation-
wide, farmers have reacted to current eco-
nomic pressures and environmental con-
cerns by reducing purchased inputs over the
past five years by about 15 percent—more
than $20 billion. Biological realities include
lower potential productivity as a result of
topsoil loss, higher costs for pumping irriga-
tion water because of lower groundwater
levels, and increased needs for fertilizers and
pesticides.
More and more people are becoming
aware of some of the unintended conse-
quences of diligent application of conven-
tional products and use of recommended
techniques. The environmental realities in-
clude high groundwater nitrate levels in
some areas, presence of pesticides and
residues in some wells, and off-target effects
of herbicides and insecticides. Surface
Charles A. Francis is professor of agronomy and
extension crops specialist with the Cooperative
Extension System, Institute of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln,
68583-0910. Paper Number 9039, Journal Series,
Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station. This
article is adapted from Francis' presentation at the
conference "The Promise of Low-Input Agriculture:
A Search for Sustainability and Profitability."
of herbicides and insecticides. Surface
runoff of suspended clays, soluble nitrate,
and some pesticides has reached streams and
lakes. These problems have been reported
and discussed in recent symposia and
publications (5, 7, 9, 21).
Global environmental implications of cur-
rent practices have been discussed in the an-
nual publication State of the World 1989 (4).
Most analyses of the current situation call
for a search for alternatives.
Low-input, sustainable agriculture
Great confusion surrounds the real mean-
ing of sustainable agriculture. For some, the
term "low-input" conveys the impression
that proponents advocate a return to labor-
intensive, nonchemical methods of the past.
Considerable baggage is attached to some
terms because of their association with cer-
tain individuals or groups. This "name
game" is discussed in depth by Lockeretz
(18).
Although the general perception is that in-
dustry does not seriously consider reducing
purchases of production inputs, today's
advertising copy reflects an obvious aware-
ness of the importance of this strategy to
farmers. Progressive companies are careful-
ly charting a course toward new-generation
products and methods that will help to off-
set some of the negative environmental con-
sequences of chemical use.
The concept of external resources (pur-
chased, fossil-fuel derived, nonrenewable,
perceived as potentially polluting) versus
internal resources (on-farm, renewable, per-
ceived as environmentally benign) has been
developed as a way to evaluate where and
how production inputs are derived (13).
Proponents of sustainable agriculture sug-
gest that substituting an internal resource,
for example, biologically fixed nitrogen, for
all or part of an external resource, for ex-
ample, anhydrous ammonia or urea, can
help shift the balance toward greater reliance
on internal inputs and make systems both
more profitable and more sustainable.
Midwest farmers are making some of these
changes, although they often do not use the
same terms to describe their modifications
in production practices.
Is this a return to the past? In fact, we can
never go backward! Sustainable agriculture
is as old 'as farming itself, yet as young as
biotechnology or genetic engineering. This
past year has seen many discussions, work-
shops, formal conferences, and new defini-
tions. The debate continues (18). What is
new is the broad array of players on the field.
We have seen symposia cosponsored by the
fertilizer industry, Rodale Institute, Farm
Bureau, and Institute for Alternative Agri-
January-February 1990 65
-------
culture. This is a healthy debate, and better
awareness and understanding are certain
result!;.
A definition of sustainable agriculture still
has no consensus, although no one would
advocate a "nonsustainable agriculture." In
a recent symposium, Edwards (8) said that
"sustainable agriculture involves integrated
systems of agricultural production less de-
pendent on high inputs of energy and syn-
thetic chemicals and more management-in-
tensive than conventional monocultural sys-
tems. These systems maintain, or only
slightly decrease, productivity, maintain or
increase net income for the farmer, are eco-
logically desirable and protect the environ-
ment."
At a special workshop of the American
Society of Agronomy (2), this definition was
advanced: "A sustainable agriculture is one
that, over the long term, enhances environ-
mental quality and the resource base on
which agriculture depends; provides for
basic human food and fiber needs; is eco-
nomically viable; and enhances the quality
of life for farmers and society as a whole."
In contrast to the definitions that include
environmental and resource dimensions,
others have proposed an economic approach
to sustainability. Hoeft and Nafziger (16)
proposed that sustainable agriculture is best
defined or achieved by striving for maxi-
mum economic yield. This is the yield that
gives the highest net return for each set of
soil and climate conditions and, thus, the
lowest unit cost of production. The Potash
and Phosphate Institute (79) described the
low-input, sustainable agriculture activity
funded by USDA as a program designed to
"reduce inputs and to convert conventional
farmers to organic farmers." As an alter-
native, the institute proposed use of op-
timum levels of inputs that define the best
management practices for each location.
Francis and Youngberg (72) discuss these
contrasting opinions and present a consen-
sus of those definitions that addresses both
environmental and economic concerns:
"Sustainable agriculture is a philosophy
based on human goals and on understanding
the long-term impact of our activities on the
environment and on other species. Use of
this philosophy guides our application of
prior experience and the latest scientific
advances to create integrated, resource-con-
serving, equitable farming systems. These
systems reduce environmental degradation,
maintain agricultural productivity, promote
economic viability in both the short and long
term, and maintain stable rural communities
and quality of life."
Harwood (75) summarizes this philosophy
in more concise form: "An agriculture that
can evolve indefinitely toward greater human
utility, greater efficiency of resource use and
a balance with the environment that is
favorable to humans and to most other
species." Midwest farmers—though con-
fused about the debate—are becoming aware
of its importance and the need to consider
seriously the stewardship of resources and
long-term impacts of our industry.
Practicalities in the Midwest
To implement a philosophy without some
specific guidelines about what practices are
considered sustainable is difficult. It de-
pends upon how we define sustainability,
what time frame is considered, and what
assumptions are made about long-term costs
and availability of fossil fuel inputs. In a
practical definition, agronomy Extension
specialists (7) at the University of Nebraska
have described sustainable agriculture in
terms of these production decisions: "A
management strategy that helps the producer
to choose hybrids and varieties, a soil fer-
tility package, a pest management approach,
a tillage system, and a crop rotation to
reduce costs of purchased inputs, minimize
the impact of the system on the immediate
and the off-farm environment, and provide
a sustained level of production and profit
from farming."
In fact, farmers in the Midwest are already
implementing a number of practices or strat-
egies that can help sustain both productivity
and profits while reducing the adverse ef-
fects of agriculture on the environment.
Crop choice, hybrid or variety choice.
Plant breeders have made important gains
over several decades in genetic resistance to
pests, tolerance to stress conditions, and
broader hybrid and variety adaptation (70).
Some specific strategies that companies rec-
ommend and farmers are using include the
following:
>• Planting crop species that tolerate
stress conditions or have high yield stabil-
ity, for example, substitution of grain sor-
ghum for corn.
>• Choosing new hybrids or varieties
with genetic resistance to predominant in-
sect or disease problems.
>• Testing and adopting varieties that
show tolerance or avoidance of adverse cli-
matic stress, for example, drought and low
or high temperatures.
>~ Cutting back on crop maturity to
minimize risk of loss at harvest and to
reduce or eliminate costs of drying the crop.
>• Planting a range of maturities of corn
hybrids to avoid poor pollination in all fields
and to spread the harvest activities.
>• Using more diverse genetic materials
to broaden adaptation to variable years and
to increase production stability.
Management of soil fertility. Contrary to
thinking only about what fertilizer package
to apply next season, wise managers are now
carefiilly setting yield goals and taking into
account all fertility sources in the crop en-
vironment. Many of these alternatives are
discussed in symposia proceedings (3, 20).
Specific methods include the following:
>• Setting realistic crop yield goals, based
on measured yields over the past five years
in each field.
>- Taking deep soil samples for nitrate
and other nutrients to see what is available
through the entire root zone.
>• Calculating nitrogen credits for le-
gumes in the rotation, for nitrate in irrigation
water, and available through mineralization
from soil organic matter.
>• Cautiously and conservatively inter-
preting soil test results to determine the
minimum fertility needed to reach the stated
yield goal.
>• Considering and testing alternative fer-
tility sources, for example, feedlot manure
and municipal sludge or green manure crops
overseeded in cereals.
Pest management strategies. Popularity
of integrated pest management has provided
evidence that complex systems based on
understanding pests and their interactions
with crops are viable alternatives to auto-
matic use of chemical pesticides. This ap-
proach describes "management" as opposed
to "control." A number of publications
describe these options (14, 22). Some
specific examples include the following:
>• Calculating economic thresholds for
each potential weed, insect, or pathogen
problem and spraying chemicals only when
necessary.
>• Delaying chemical pest control mea-
sures until other more benign strategies have
failed, for example, rescue treatments for
weeds or insects only when they appear.
>• Using crop rotations to break repro-
ductive cycles of crop pests, for example,
corn/alfalfa or corn/soybeans to control com
root worm.
>• Rotating pesticides and using mini-
mum effective doses to reduce pressure on
pests to develop more virulent forms.
>• Planting genetically resistant varieties
that will tolerate some damage by insects or
pathogens.
>• Maintaining maximum genetic diver-
sity within the field and even within a variety
to reduce likelihood of a serious pest prob-
lem.
Tillage options. New planting equipment
and primary tillage options have opened the
opportunities for reducing passes of
machinery across the field. Some farmers
use permanent ridges and no primary land
preparation after the system has been
66 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
established. Reduced tillage has become the
norm in the Midwest, now practiced on
about 80 percent of row-crop acres (6).
Tillage options include the following:
>• Zero-tillage planting into previous
crop residues, using large coulters or rotary
equipment to open the planting strip.
>• Undercutting crop residue with a
chisel, rod weeder, or V-blade to control
germinated weeds and keep residue on the
surface.
>• Ridge tillage in a permanent traffic
pattern, with or without herbicide banded
over the row for early season weed control.
>• Minimizing compaction by timely
field operations and avoiding wet fields with
heavy equipment.
Crop rotation and systems design. Diver-
sity in species is a characteristic of natural
ecosystems, and we generally believe that
this contributes to their stability (25). The
opposite extreme in a diversity continuum
is the genetic uniformity of monocultural
corn cultivation. Farmers have planted corn
because it has been profitable, for example,
but changing realities suggest that it may not
always be the best alternative. More diverse
systems may be more sustainable (77):
>• Rotating corn and soybeans to provide
fertility to the cereal and boost yields of both
crops; but this may increase potential for
erosion from soybean land.
>• Using longer, more complex rotations
for example, corn, soybean, corn, oat/clo-
ver, for more diversity and potential for
stability.
>• Implementing contour cultivation, per-
manent ridges, and alternating strips of dif-
ferent crops to diversify the landscape and
help reduce erosion.
>• Relay- or double-cropping systems to
keep a green cover over the land for more
of the total year and increase total crop
production.
>• Overseeding legumes or grasses to
capture nitrogen, reduce wind or water ero-
sion of soil, and help recycle nutrients.
^- Introducing more diverse enterprises
to provide raw material for different value-
added products that can enhance income of
farms and communities.
Information as a key internal resource.
Although different from other production
inputs, such as a sack of fertilizer or a con-
tainer of pesticide, information and experi-
ence are truly unique types of resources for
decision-making and management. In fact,
once information is received and processed,
even when it, comes from outside the farm,
this becomes integrated into the farmer's
knowledge and experience base; thus, it is
converted into an internal resource (17).
Some of the unique qualities of information
include the following:
^ Information is adaptable and can be
used in one or more different farming sys-
tems or crop applications.
>• This resource can be substituted for
another, more expensive input, for example,
groundwater nitrate in the well at 20 parts
per million could mean 100 pounds per acre
nitrogen on the irrigated corn crop; this in-
formation is worth $15 to $20 per acre.
>• Information is mobile; it can be moved
from one farm or field to another and shared
with neighbors without reducing its value.
>• Once applied in the field, information
is not "used up" in the same manner as fer-
tilizer or pesticide; in fact, it grows more
valuable with use.
Some producers consider information
their most valuable internal, renewable re-
source. In research and extension, we have
to provide credible results in a format that
can be easily understood and evaluated.
With new participatory methods of research
and testing, farmers can help in the evalua-
tion and spread of new ideas and practices.
One of our greatest challenges today is to
provide tools and guidelines that will help
growers sort out the available information
and make rational and profitable decisions
on how and when to use inputs. We need to
help farmers empower themselves to gain
confidence in appropriate technologies and
in science and to make their own decisions
about how to achieve a sustainable agricul-
ture.
Conclusions
Midwest farmers are faced with difficult
decisions in the use of alternative technolo-
gies and new products. The current interest
in low-input, sustainable agriculture is a re-
sult, in part, of economic factors and, more
important, the growing concern about finite
energy resources and environmental impacts
of some current conventional farming prac-
tices and systems. Substituting information,
management, and new alternatives for con-
ventional products is one of the ways farmers
in the Midwest are addressing these challeng-
es. Agriculture must become more efficient
in using inputs; reducing purchased products
based on fossil fuels is one way to make pro-
duction systems more self-sustaining and
geared toward future resource realities.
The practices described here are only
some of the approaches Midwest farmers
use today to move their operations into a
more resource-efficient and sustainable
mode. The term "low-input" may be an un-
fortunate choice because of implications of
low output and low management; in fact,
yields may be the same or could increase
as a result of improved management, and
low-input could mean high profits. The phil-
osophy of sustainable agriculture is likely
to guide our industry into the next century.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Agronomy Extension Specialists. 1987. Sus-
tainable agriculture.. .wise and profitable use of
our resources in Nebraska. Dept. Agron., Coop.
Ext. Sys., Univ. Nebr., Lincoln. 220 pp.
2. American Society of Agronomy. 1989. Decisions
reached on sustainable ag. Agron. News, (Jan.):
15.
3. Bezdicek, D. F. 1984. Organic farming: Cur-
rent technology and its role in a sustainable
agriculture. Spec. Publ. 46. Am. Soc. Agron.,
Madison, Wise. 192 pp.
4. Brown, L. R. 1989. State of the world 1989.
WorldWatch Inst., Washington, D.C., and W. W.
Norton & Co., New York, N.Y.
5. Council for Agriculture Science and Technology.
1988. Longterm viability of U.S. agriculture. Rpt.
No. 114. Iowa State Univ., Ames. 48 pp.
6. Dickey, E. G, editor. 1986. Conservation tillage
proceedings. No. 5. Dept. Agr. Eng., Univ.
Nebr., Lincoln.
7. Edens, T. C, C. Fridgen, and S. L. Battenfield,
editors. 1985. Sustainable agriculture and in-
tegrated farming systems. Mich. State Univ.
Press, East Lansing. 344 pp.
8. Edwards, C. A. 1988. The concept of integrated
systems in lower input/sustainable agriculture.
In C. A. Francis and J. W. King [eds.] Sus-
tainable Agriculture in the Midwest. Coop. Ext.
System, Univ. Nebr., Lincoln.
9. Edwards, C. A., R. Lai, P. Madden, R. H.
Miller, and G. House. 1990. Sustainable
agricultural systems. Soil and Water Cons. Soc.,
Ankeny, Iowa.
10. Francis, C A. 1989. Breeding hybrids and
varieties for sustainable systems. InC. A. Fran-
cis, C. A. Flora, and L. D. King [eds.] Sus-
tainable Agriculture for Temperate Zones. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
11. Francis, C. A., C. A. Flora, and L. D. King, ed-
itors. 1989. Sustainable agriculture for temper-
ate zones. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
12. Francis, C. A., and G. Youngberg. 1989. Sus-
tainable agriculture—an overview. In C. A.
Francis, C. A. Flora, and L. D. King [eds.] Sus-
tainable Agriculture for Temperate Zones. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
13. Francis, C. A., and J. W. King. 1988. Cropping
systems based on farm-derived, renewable
resources. Agr. Systems, U.K. 27: 67-75.
14. Grainger, M., and S. Ahmed. 1988. Handbook
of plants with pest control properties. John Wiley
& Sons, New York, N.Y. 469 pp.
15. Harwood, R. R. 1988. History of sustainable
agriculture: U.S. and international perspective.
In C. A. Edwards et al. [eds.] Sustainable Ag-
ricultural Systems. Soil and Water Cons. Soc.,
Ankeny, Iowa.
16. Hoeft, R. G., and E. D. Nafziger. 1988. Sus-
tainable agriculture. In R. G. Hoeft [ed.] In
Proc., 1988 111. Fer. Conf. Dept. Agron., Univ.
111., Urbana. pp. 7-11.
17. King, J. W., and C. A. Francis. 1988. Back to
the future: The power of communication and in-
formation. Farming Systems Res./Ext. Symp.
Univ. Ark., Fayetteville. 19 pp.
18. Lockeretz, W., 1988. Open questions in sus-
tainable agriculture. Am. J. Alternative Agr. 3:
174-181.
19. Potash and Phosphate Institute. 1989. The
challenge of groundwater concerns with produc-
tion agriculture—is LISA the answer? Fer-
tilegrams. Atlanta, Ga.
20. Power, J. F., editor. 1987. The role of legumes
in conservation tillage systems. Soil and Water
Cons. Soc., Ankeny, Iowa.
21. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. Report
and recommendations on organic agriculture.
Washington, D.C. 94 pp.
22. Ware, G. W. 1980. Complete guide to pest con-
trol, with and without pesticides. Thompson
Publ., Fresno, Calif. 290 pp.
23. Wilson, E. Q, ed. 1988. Biodiversity. Nat. Acad.
Press, Washington, D.C. 521 pp. D
January-February 1990 67
-------
CROP ROTATIONS
Sustainable and profitable
By Roger L. Higgs, Arthur E. Peterson, and William H. Paulson
THE time-tested advantages of crop
rotations and the goals of low-input,
sustainable agriculture are synony-
mous in most respects. Crop rotations are
basic to the manner in which many farmers
practice low-input, sustainable agriculture.
Sustained profitability with either rotations
of sustainable agricultural systems is a nec-
essary assumption if farmers are to adopt
these systems.
Rotations and sustainable agriculture are
really old agricultural practices. In the 1940s
and 1950s, agriculture began the transition
toward a more intensified monocultural sys-
tem of cropping over vast areas of land, with
high inputs of a fossil-ftiel-based technology.
This technology uses an impressive array of
fertilizers, other agricultural chemicals, fuel,
and equipment. Producers believed that the
benefits from rotations would be supplanted
by this new, rapidly developing technology
and monocultural cropping system. Changes
in the agricultural economy, environmental
concerns, and results from long-term rota-
tion studies now dictate a renewed and close
look at crop rotations.
Rotational pros and cons
Historically, crop rotations are believed to
date from the first century B.C. The Mor-
row plots at the University of Illinois, Ur-
bana, America's oldest experimental field,
have provided comparisons of rotations since
1876 (7). Other long-term rotation studies
in Missouri, western Canada (8), Iowa (5),
and Wisconsin (4) have been conducted since
1889, the 1900s, 1915, and 1967, respectively.
The advantages attributed to crop rotations
have much in common with the reasons
given for considering a low-input, sustain-
able agricultural management system. Crop
rotations have always been a valid farm man-
agement practice. The advantages for using
a suitable rotation system are many:
>• Reduction In the amount of soil erosion
and \vater ninqff. These problems are more
accentuated on credible soils with the more
Roger L, Uiggs is a professor of soil and crop
science in the College of Agriculture, University of
KiifOHsfH, Ptaneville, 53818; Arthur E. Peterson is
a prt/essor of soils, Soils Department, College of
Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wiscon-
sin, Madisonf and \VtUiam H. Paulson is superin-
tendenttifthe Lancaster Agricultural Research Center
and Associate Professor, Agronomy Department,
University tf Wisconsin. Madison.
Soii Conservation Service/Ron Nichols
intensive, monocultural cropping system.
>• Use of legumes. The need for commer-
cial nitrogen is reduced for a corn crop fol-
lowing alfalfa or soybeans. Nitrogen is re-
tained for a longer period in the form of
organic material, which reduces losses due
to leaching and runoff.
>• Improvement of soil tilth. Soil condi-
tions are improved because of the forage
crops in rotations, which improve organic
matter content and soil structure, which, in
turn, improve infiltration and permeabilty.
>• Weed, insect, and crop disease cycles
are broken by the use of cropping sequences
that reduce the need for pesticides, both in
kinds and amount.
>• Positive allelopathy effects. The resi-
dues of some crops stimulate subsequent
crops in certain crop sequences. Wheat resi-
due improves corn yields, and vice versa.
Conversely, alfalfa residue is auto-toxic to
alfalfa that is replanted in its residue.
>• Diversificiation. Different crops on a
farm help distribute time and labor require-
ments throughout the year and should reduce
the power requirement of the principal trac-
tor used for tillage.
>• Value-added potential. Home-grown
crops can be used to feed owned livestock.
The value of the crop is increased because
of the marketing of livestock products sold
in the development of a holistic farming
system. Livestock manure also is returned
to the land, which reduces the dependency
upon commercial fertilizer.
There are also disadvantages associated
with crop rotations. Disadvantages would
favor monocultural cropping systems:
>• The need for a greater variety of ma-
chinery with a higher cost per crop unit pro-
duced. Machinery may not be used as effi-
ciently as it would be in a single-crop
system.
>• The farm manager needs a broader
knowledge base and more varied expertise
that is required when managing a greater
number of crops. This may be a particular
burden on part-time farmers.
>• Financial returns may be lower in cer-
tain years. Not all cropland would be avail-
able to take advantage of particularly favor-
able market conditions of a specific crop.
However, income may be more uniform be-
cause the peaks and valleys associated with
a single crop could be evened out.
>• Growing conditions in a given year or
region may favor one crop over another. Di-
versification may even out production highs
and lows. Conversely, certain climates and
locations may favor monocultures.
Clearly, the goals for sustainable agricul-
ture relate to the use of crop rotations. The
objectives of both that interrelate and are
mutually advantageous include:
>• Reduction of soil erosion.
>• Protection of groundwater and surface
water; a reduction in the need for pesticides,
commercial fertilizer, and less-intense crop-
ping systems should improve water quality.
>• Reduction of tillage; consequently, less
fossil fuel will be required.
^ Reduction in the use of pesticides and
fertilizer.
^- Promotion of healthier population.
^- Promotion of farm profitability, pro-
duction efficiency, and sustainability of the
family farm.
What of new technology?
Should a change from monoculture to
crop rotations require that the farmer dis-
regard technological advances that have oc-
curred since the 1940s and 1950s? Farmers
should consider using the positive informa-
tion and technology available. For instance,
varietal improvements have occurred in all
crops. Use of older varieties would not
change the environmental impact and would
reduce farm profitability. In another in-
stance, both monoculture and rotations need
some additional fertility. A lesson learned
from the Morrow plots is that soil nutrients
will be depleted by all crop sequences or
rotations over time without the addition of
fertilizer or manure. In a study initiated in
68 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
1876, corn yields averaged 42 bushels per
acre for continuous corn, 58 bushels per
acre for a corn-soybean rotation, and 76
bushels per acre for a corn-oats-alfalfa rota-
tion when no fertilizer was applied. Since
1955, part of each rotation was given an an-
nual application of nitrogen-phosphorus-
potassium fertilizer. Yields of the three re-
spective rotations averaged 124, 130, and 134
bushels per acre. Manure, lime, and phos-
phorus added to other selected plots in-
creased production in continuous corn to 89
bushels per acre, in the corn-soybean rota-
tion to 124 bushels per acre, and in the corn-
oats-alfalfa rotation to 136 bushels per acre.
Manure could certainly substitute for some
of the additional fertilizer needs, but the
quantity of manure available would be in-
sufficient in the United States to meet the
total needs at current crop production levels.
From another perspective, many farmers
who practice sustainable agricultural tech-
niques and use crop rotations likely will
make wise use of appropriate, low-risk her-
bicides, insecticides, and fungicides. Pres-
ently, 95 percent of U.S. farmers apply her-
bicides to corn and soybeans. It seems un-
likely that substantial numbers of farmers
would totally quit using herbicides.
In relation to pesticide use in rotations,
cycles are broken by crop rotation for the
build-up of certain insects, diseases, and
weeds. The break-up of these cycles for
some pests will reduce the need for pesti-
cides in many instances. For example, the
corn rootworm is seldom a problem for corn
during the year following alfalfa in a rota-
tion. Regarding diseases, soybean stem rot
is controlled by crop rotation. Weeds, such
as wild oats, wild proso millet, and fall pani-
cum, are problems in monocultures and,
conversely, controlled better in rotations.
Rotation systems will continue to rely
upon mechanized systems. Fuel require-
ments can be reduced by using conservation
tillage practices as part of planting systems
in crop rotations.
The matter of profitability
Financial profitability of a cropping sys-
tem is essential for the livelihood of the
farmer and the farm family. Crop rotations
and low-input, sustainable agriculture must
return an acceptable profitability level if
farmers are going to adopt such systems.
The acceptable level of profitability will vary
among farmers and relates to various social,
religious, and family values.
Several recent studies in Canada and the
United States that make economic com-
parisons among crop rotations indicate that
profitable choices can be made (1, 3, 6, 8).
Six crop sequences were compared in a
10-year economic analysis, 1977-1986, at
Lancaster, Wisconsin.1 The crop sequences
were continuous corn, corn-soybeans-corn-
oats-alfalfa, corn-corn-oats-alfalfa-alfalfa,
corn-corn-corn-alfalfa-alfalfa, corn-corn-al-
falfa-alfalfa, and continuous alfalfa. Nitro-
gen was applied at four different rates to
corn in the rotations.
The economic analysis was determined
for a 400-acre farm using actual crop yield
data from 1977-1986 (see table). The eco-
nomic analysis was an historic analysis in
that actual yields, actual annual average Wis-
consin prices (no government programs),
actual levels of seed and chemical inputs,
and actual field passes with equipment were
used. Machinery and in-field labor costs
were based upon operations on a 400-acre
farm. The base data are in 1986 dollars, with
adjustments made for 1976-1985 using ap-
propriate indices. No land or management
costs were deducted. Phosphorus and potas-
sium input costs were based upon crop
removal. Harvesting was assumed to be per-
formed by the farmer, except that custom
'Higgs, R. L., J. Ambrosius, A. Peterson, R. Klemme, W.
Paulson, and S. McComb. 1987. "Economic Returns for Six
Long-Term Rotations in the Upper Mississippi Valley."
Paper presented at the 42nd annual meeting, Soil Conser-
vation Society of America.
rates of $20 per acre were charged for
harvest of corn in the continuous corn rota-
tion, soybeans, and oats. Alfalfa seeding
was charged in the year of its original
seeding. Profit referred to in this study
means the economic return to land and
management.
The cash crop values used to derive prof-
its in this study do not consider the enhanced
value of these crops when home-fed to live-
stock. Crop rotation profits of $10,000 to
$12,000 for rotations with primarily corn and
alfalfa would be potentially enhanced in
value on a livestock farm, to $15,000 to
$20,000 per year. Continuous corn or con-
tinuous hay would not provide a complete
ration of home-grown crops.
Economic comparisons of two-year crop
rotations that included alfalfa-corn,
soybean-corn, and corn-corn in Minnesota
(3) showed that an alfalfa-corn sequence,
with the alfalfa subjected to a three-cut
system, is the economically optimum rota-
tion when compared to continuous corn or
soybean-corn systems. In western Colorado
(/), a rotation that included alfalfa and
sugarbeets is most profitable, partially
because continuous corn required more
nitrogen fertilizer.
Profit per year for six Upper Midwest crop rotations on a 400-acre
farm, based on a 10-year study (1977-1986) at Lancaster, Wisconsin
Annual Profit by Nitrogen Application Rate
(pounds/acre) for Corn
Rotation
0
50
100
200
$•
Continuous corn -21,888.00 19,504.00 28,632.00
CSCOA*
CCOAA
CCCAA
CCAA
Continuous alfalfa
-8,120.00
5,205.60
965.60
11,280.00
19,864.00
-5,388.80
9,772.00
7,717.60
11,691.00
18,516.00
-4,076.00
8,759.20
10,631.20
12,779.00
20,720.00
32,096.00
-5,843.20
4,488.80
3,716.80
4,837.00
18,760.00
*C-corn, S=soybeans, O=oats, and A=alfalfa,
Average total revenues and costs from 1977 to 1986 under
U.S. market and government support scenarios in a
10-year study, Lancaster, Wisconsin
Historic Market Scenario
Crop
Sequence
Average
Total Revenue
Average
Total Cost
Government Program Scenario
Average Average
Total Revenue Total Cost
$/acre
AAAAA
CCCCC
CCOAA
CGAA
CCCAA
CSCOA
276.33
282.73
272.22
280.61
272,78
251.00
163.89
212.37
207.29
224.51
230.47
237.98
276.32
303.28
282.49
292.80
286.52
259.18
163.89
197.74
201.22
220.28
227.76
231.41
*A=alfalfa, C=corn, O=oats, S=soybeans.
January-February 1990 69
-------
The effect of government programs on
profit levels in crop sequences was also as-
sessed for the 10-year Lancaster, Wiscon-
sin study.1 Data from these studies showed
that continuous corn produced the highest
average revenues, while continuous alfalfa
had the lowest average production costs.
Thus, continuous alfalfa and continuous
corn ranked first and second as the most
profitable systems. It should be noted that
corn sale prices were very favorable in the
1970s and hay prices were very favorable in
the 1980s. Continuous corn received the
greatest profit enhancement ($35.16 per acre)
because of government programs, whereas
1McCorab. S., R. Ktemmc. and J. Ambrosius. 1988. "The
Effect of Government Programs on Profit Levels and
Vjnancc in Rotation and Continuous Cropping Systems,
I977-1W6,™ Riper presented at the American Agricultural
Ecrniomfc Association Annual Meeting.
continuous hay received no government
support.
Rotations of primarily corn and hay
(corn-corn-oats-alfalfa-alfalfa, corn-corn-
com-alfalfa-alfalfa, corn-corn-alfalfa-alfal-
fa) showed moderate profitability on 400
acres ($7,717 to $12,779 range) for the 50 and
100 pound-per-acre nitrogen application
level. The corn-corn-alfalfa-alfalfa rotation
with no nitrogen fertilization showed a net
profit of $11,280 for 400 acres.
Research in Iowa in 1952 (2) indicated that
continuous corn provided more return for a
100-acre form, using 1947 prices, than would
a corn-oats-legume rotation because of the
favorable prices for corn versus forages. This
post-World War n report from Iowa was in-
dicative of later research reports and farmers'
experiences in major cropping regions.
Crop yields (bushels/acre adjusted to 15.5% moisture) for a
crop sequence study, 1977-1986, at Lancaster, Wisconsin
Crop Yields at Various Nitrogen Application
(pounds/acre) Levels
Cropping Sequence*
0
50
100
200 Average
- bushels/acre •
Corn yields
Continuous corn
cSCOMf
CScOM
cCCMM
CcCMM
CCcMM
cCOMM
CcOMM
cCMM
Average
Oat yields
CSCoM
CCoMM
Average
Soybean yield
CsCOM
Average
Alfalfa yields
CSCOm
CCCmMt
CCOMm
CCOmM
CCOMm
CCmM
CCMm
Continuous meadow
Average
36.5
119.4
115.1
131.3
92.5
71.4
131.1
100.5
135.3
106.1
104.4
38.6
54.2
46.0
37.9
88.1
128.1
125.9
133.9
118.5
109.8
138.4
124.0
142.3
122.7
123.9
49.7
64.7
55.3
38.8
103.1
130.0
134.2
139.6
129.4
123.6
138.2
133.1
143.0
138.3
131.4
59.7
67.7
63.0
39.6
125.3
130.0
131.3
132.8
128.5
125.8
138.0
133.4
136.9
135.2
131.8
70.9
75.2
71.5
40.1
88.3
126.9
126.6
134.4
117.2
107.6
136.4
122.8
140.3
125.5
122.8
54.7
65.4
58.9
39.2
tons/acre dry matter
4.31
1.79
4.40
4.06
4.29
1.36
4.55
3.76
3.64
4.17
1.78
4.38
4.06
4.39
1.95
4.37
3.69
3.60
4.06
1.90
4.49
4.09
4.39
2.11
4.55
3.82
3.68
4.42
2.01
4.58
3.97
4.24
2.05
4.65
3.69
3.71
4.24
1.88
4.47
4.04
4.32
2.01
4.53
3.75
3.66
*C»corn, s=soybeans, O = oats, M = meadow.
fLowor case letters indicate the crop year in which the yield was determined.
ioirect seeded annually from 1977 through 1986. The continuous meadow was
reseeded (direct) in 1980 and 1986. Two cuttings were obtained in the con-
tinuous meadow in 1980 and 1986.
Two Canadian studies in Ontario and
Saskatchewan (6, 8) noted economic results
of crop rotation studies similar to those in
the United States. When grain prices were
high for monoculture or row crops, such as
wheat, corn, or soybeans, there was more
profit in continuous cropping or in rotations
dominated by these crops. Six crop se-
quences that incorporated the six principal
Ontario field cash crops (6) were compared
over a 20-year period under five alternative
yield-trend scenarios. The economically
preferred sequence under all five yield-trend
scenarios was continuous corn, with corn-
soybeans a close second. The corn-alfalfa
sequences ranked fourth or fifth in economic
return.
Various combinations of wheat and fal-
low rotations were compared in south-west-
ern Saskatchewan for 18 years (8). When
wheat prices were low, the fallow-wheat
rotation was the most profitable. When
prices were moderate, the fallow-wheat-
wheat rotation provided the highest net re-
turn. When prices were high, continuous
wheat provided the highest net return.
Conclusions
Crop rotations that include grain and for-
age crops can be profitable and contribute
to a sustainable agriculture. The relative
prices of grain and forage and the costs of
producing cash crops become important in
determining which combination of forages
and other crops pays the farmer the best.
Changing public attitudes regarding soil and
water quality and tougher environmental
and soil erosion laws likely will favor crop
rotations over monocultures.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Gee, C. K., and C. W. Robinson. 1969. The
economics of cropping systems for western Col-
orado. Bull. 539S. Colo. Agr. Exp. Sta., Ft.
Collins.
2. Heady, E. Q, H. Jensen, and M. Anderson. 1952.
How to choose the most profitable crop rotation
for your farm. Iowa Farm Sci. 6: 191-195.
3. Hesterman, O. B., C. C. Sheaffer, and E. I. Fuller.
1986. Economic comparisons of crop rotations in-
cluding alfalfa, soybean, and com. Agron. J. 78:
24-28.
4. Higgs, R. L., W. H. Paulson, J. W. Pendleton,
A. E. Peterson, J. A. Jacob, and W. H. Shrader.
1976. Crop rotations and nitrogen: Crop sequence
comparisons on soils of the driftless area of
southwestern Wisconsin. Res. Bull. No. R2761.
Univ. Wise. Agr. Exp. Sta., Madison. 12 pp.
5. Shrader, W. D. 1968. Crop rotations: 1968 view-
point, Iowa Farm Sci. 23: 3-6.
6. Stonehouse, D. P., B. D. Kay, J. K. Baffoe, and
D. L. Johnston-Drury. 1988. Economic choices
of crop sequences on cash-cropping farms with
alternative crop yield trends. J. Soil and Water
Cons. 43: 266-270.
7. Welch, L. F. 1976. The Morrow plots—one hun-
dred years of research. Ann. Agron. 27: 881-890,
8. Zentner, R. P., and C. A. Campbell. 1988. First
18 years of a long-term crop rotation study in
southwestern Saskatchewan—yields, grain pro-
tein, and economic performance. Can. J. Plant
Sci. 68: 1-21. D
70 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
Low-input farming
systems under
conservation compliance
By Dana L. Hoag and Kevin E. Jack
THE Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA)
broke new legislative ground by es-
tablishing unique programs to ad-
dress environmental concerns. It attacks soil
conservation with the conservation compli-
ance, conservation reserve, and sodbuster
programs; agri-chemical pollution is ad-
dressed with research and extension pro-
grams to promote low-input farming sys-
tems. It may be difficult, however, to achieve
soil conservation and reduce inputs simul-
taneously because conservation systems are
not always consistent with low-input agri-
culture.
Low-input agriculture is to a large degree
linked to conservation plans developed for
conservation compliance because these
plans affect input decisions. Policymakers,
agricultural advisors, and farmers should
consider input use in conservation plans if
low-input agriculture is deemed important
for society. Although soil conservation com-
pliance will be the dominating concern, un-
necessary tradeoffs might be reduced with
a comparative assessment of the impact on
Dana L. Hoag is an assistant professor and Kevin
E. Jack is a former research associate in the Depart-
ment of Economics and Business at North Carolina
State University, Raleigh 27695-8110. The authors
thank Herb Holloway and other reviewers for their
input. This project was partially funded under U.S.
Department of Agriculture grant no. 7435142 for LISA
research.
resources and the environment for every soil
conservation system.
In this analysis, the effect of conservation
compliance on the adoption of low-input,
sustainable agriculture is examined for Stan-
ly County, North Carolina. For illustration,
low-input, sustainable agriculture is defined
as a system that uses no commercial fertil-
izer or pesticides. These results illustrate
general relationships that may vary in in-
dividual situations or interpretations of what
constitutes such a system.
Stage set for conflict
The conservation compliance provision of
the Conservation Title (Title XII) denies vir-
tually all government program benefits to
persons who produce an agricultural com-
modity (annual crop) on a highly erodible
field after January 1, 1990, without an ap-
proved conservation plan (8). These benefits
include price and income supports, disaster
payments, crop insurance, Farmers Home
Administration loans, Commodity Credit
Corporation storage benefits, farm storage
facility loans, and other programs with pay-
ments made for commodities produced by
the farmer. Producers had until January 1990
to secure plan approval from the Soil Con-
servation Service (SCS) and have until 1995
to implement the plan fully.
Subtitle C of the FSA authorized the crea-
tion and funding of research and education
to promote the development and adoption
of low-input farming techniques. Although
first authorized in 1985, Subtitle C was not
funded until fiscal year 1988, when an in-
itial allocation of $4.1 million was granted
(22). Subtitle C emphasizes practices that
(1) enhance agricultural productivity; (2)
maintain the productivity of the land; (3)
reduce soil erosion and loss of water and
plant nutrients; and (4) conserve energy and
natural resources. Such agricultural prac-
tices often exclude or largely reduce the use
of synthetically derived fertilizers and pes-
ticides while relying upon crop rotations,
crop residues, legumes, green manures, me-
chanical cultivation, mineral-bearing rocks,
and aspects of biological pest control to
maintain soil productivity (20). In addition
to its environmental aspects, mounting con-
cern about farm financial stress and the as-
sociated need to reduce cash outlays have
prompted producer interest in low-input
farming systems (4, 22).
Title XII and Subtitle C appear mutually
compatible. Each seeks to promote the use
of agricultural systems having reduced off-
farm costs and, in doing so, addresses par-
ticular criticisms of previous agricultural
legislation. For example, Title XII is "in
part, a response to the charge that price sup-
port programs have contributed to soil ero-
sion by encouraging production of soil-
depleting crops and by making it profitable
for formers to cultivate marginal land" (18).
Similarly, it has been asserted that "U.S.
farm-commodity programs encourage con-
ventional farming systems and discourage
low-input systems" (23). Madden noted that
"federal price support policies.. .effectively
discourage many farmers from producing
forage legume crops that would.. .reduce the
farmer's dependence on purchased inputs of
fertilizers and pesticides" (14). The enact-
ment of Subtitle C may be viewed, in part,
as a response to this criticism.
Unfortunately, soil conservation systems
are not always low-input systems. For ex-
ample, conservation tillage technologies that
reduce erosion sometimes increase the use
of fertilizers, pesticides, and other farm
chemicals (5). Madden noted, "The herbi-
cides used in lieu of tillage to control weeds
have become a major source of environ-
mental damage in many instances" (14).
Buttel and Gillespie found "many organic
(low-input) farmers will be reluctant to use
reduced-tillage practices because these prac-
tices tend to require use of herbicides" (3).
Also, conservation tillage systems rely on
herbicides that are more likely to remain on
the soil surface than to bind with soil par-
ticles, making chemical runoff into the en-
January-February 1990 71
-------
vironment an issue (16). Low-input form-
ing systems often rely heavily on mechanical
cultivation to replace chemical herbicides;
mechanical cultivation practices may lead to
unacceptable levels of soil loss under the
provisions of conservation compliance.
The conflict of goals found in the FSA is
not unexpected considering the multitude of
objectives outlined in the legislation. Re-
ferring specifically to the conservation as-
pects of FSA, Reichelderfer commented,
"...when a program has multiple goals, no
single goal is likely to be maximized without
trading off performance in achieving another
goal or goals" (17). Madden noted that
while conservation tillage "is highly effec-
tive in attaining one goal of sustainability,
it is contrary to other goals, including reduc-
tion of environmental hazards and human
health risk associated with use of synthetic
chemical pesticides" (14).
Farm-level considerations
The decision of agricultural producers to
participate in government farm programs
and to adhere to conservation compliance
rules is highly farm-specific. Individual fee-
tore, including soil type, slope and slope
length, weather, historical production, cur-
rent base acreage, and proportion of base to
total acreage, will determine whether con-
servation compliance will be successful in
reducing erosion or if farmers will opt to
quit using programs to avoid the additional
costs imposed by the legislation (11). Sim-
ilarly, these same factors will influence the
relative economic attractiveness of low-input
farming techniques to agricultural pro-
ducers.
Generally, low-input systems have not
been financially competitive with traditional
production systems largely because of the
relatively lower prices received for legumes
and other crops often used in low-input sys-
tems. Commodity programs are partly to
blame for price differentials that do not sup-
port low-input, sustainable agricultural sys-
tems. Commodity programs also encourage
monocultures, thereby discouraging the use
of rotations.
Farmers received mixed financial signals
for low-input agriculture under conservation
compliance. Its impact on sustainable agri-
culture is linked to erosion controls on par-
ticipants in commodity programs. For some,
the erosion constraint will increase the use
of hays and legumes in rotation consistent-
ly with low-input farming. However, for
others who use conservation tillage to con-
trol erosion agrichemical use could increase.
Of course, there are several exceptions
specific to the agriculture and personal cir-
cumstances of any particular producer.
Perhaps the greatest economic disincen-
tive to producer adoption of low-input sys-
tems is the opportunity cost of lost commod-
ity program payments. A producer must add
the opportunity cost of lost base acreage to
the cost of the low-input system. Base is the
farm's historical acreage that determines total
payments to the farm. For example, a two-
year rotation of corn and soybeans uses 50
percent corn base on an average annual basis.
A 100-acre farm with 75 acres of base would
lose 25 acres of base if a corn-soybean rota-
tion were adopted. Low-input, sustainable
agricultural systems that do not have a pro-
gram crop on every acre each year might be
avoided by farmers with a large proportion
of base acreage.
Low-input in North Carolina
It is helpful to examine a local example
to understand better how conservation com-
pliance might affect adoption of low-input,
sustainable techniques. A study recently
conducted in Stanly County, North Caro-
lina, looked at the linkage between conser-
vation compliance and low-input adoption
on a composite 100-acre farm (9). Stanly
County is typical of southeastern U.S. Pied-
mont. More than 90 percent of the county's
1987 harvested acreage was devoted to six
major field crops: corn, soybeans, wheat,
oats, barley, and grain sorghum (75). Much
of the wheat, oats, and barley is double-
cropped with soybeans or grain sorghum.
Soil erosion is an important issue in Stanly
County. More than 80 percent of the total
land area is classified as either highly erodi-
ble or potentially highly erodible. SCS, ac-
cording to officials in the agency's North
Carolina state office, will treat potentially
highly erodible soils as highly erodible un-
less a farmer appeals, thus making conser-
vation compliance legislation an important
consideration for most agricultural pro-
ducers.
The optimal crop plans and decision to
participate in government programs were
analyzed for three levels of program base:
25, 50, and 100 percent of total farm acres.
Because farmers are free to trade base acre-
ages between program crops on a one-time
basis (except from other crops to cotton) as
they develop their conservation plans, the
farm was restricted only to its total base
acreage. This base could be distributed free-
ly between program crops in the most prof-
itable manner.
The optimal crop mix and program par-
ticipation decisions were analyzed for each
level of program base acreage, with and
without conservation compliance. The mod-
el farms could chose among 11 agricultural
systems representing a diversity of contin-
uous and rotation cropping patterns, credi-
bilities, agrichemical intensity, and pur-
chased chemical fertilizer use. The 11 sys-
tems included three rotations and two con-
tinuous crops. The three rotations were corn
followed by soybeans; a four-year cycle with
hay grown for two complete years, corn the
following year, and soybeans in the fourth
year; and corn followed by a wheat-soybean
double-crop.
Relative erosiveness, fertilizer use, and pesticide use of
Conventional Crops
System
Rotation
Rotation
Rotation
Continuous
Continuous
(nc-titi)
Continuous
Crop(s)
Corn-soybean
Corn-wheat/soybean
H ay-hay-corn-soybean
Corn
Corn
Soybean
Relative
Erosiveness*
High
Low
Low
High
Low
High
Relative
Chemical
Fertilizer
Requirement*
Moderate
High
Low
High
High
Low
Relative
Pesticide
Requirement*
High
High
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
systems analyzed
Low-Input Crops
Relative
Erosiveness*
High
Moderate
Low
High
—
High
Relative
Chemical
Fertilizer
Requirement*
None
None
None
None
—
None
Relative
Pesticide
Requirement*
None
None
None
None
—
None
•Denotes comparison over all 11 systems.
72 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
Each rotation, uses two sets of practices:
conventional production practices and low-
input techniques. Rotation 1 has a conven-
tional production system of conventionally
tilled corn and soybeans grown with pesti-
cides and nitrogen fertilizer, and a low-input
system using mechanical cultivation, poultry
litter for fertlizer, and a crimson clover win-
ter cover preceding corn and a rye winter
cover preceding soybeans.
Rotation 2 has a sequence of mixed
grass/legume hay, no-till corn, and no-till
soybeans, all grown with typical levels of
purchased chemical fertilizer and pesticides,
and a low-input system of grass hay, no pes-
ticides, mechanical cultivation, and poultry
litter applied for nitrogen.
Rotation 3 has one treatment using no-till
corn and a conventionally tilled wheat/no-
till soybean double-crop; the other, a low-
input sequence, includes corn followed by
a double-crop of conventionally tilled wheat
and soybeans, with poultry litter applied to
the corn and wheat. These three rotations
provide a total of six cropping systems.
Corn and soybeans were the only contin-
uous crops analyzed. The three continuous
corn systems included both no-till and con-
ventional tillage systems using standard lev-
els of fertilizer, insecticide, and herbicide and
a low-input cultivation system relying on no
purchased fertilizers or pesticides, with poul-
try litter and crimson clover providing ni-
trogen. Two continuous soybean cropping
systems also were analyzed. Conventional
tillage practices and standard levels of pur-
chased inputs were used in one system; the
other had no purchased inputs, relying ex-
clusively on mechanical cultivation for weed
control and poultry litter for fertilizer.
All low-input systems were charged for
liming and manure application. Addition of
lime was found to be important in previous
low-input corn and soybeans trials con-
ducted in the Piedmont (2,13). Stockpiled
poultry litter is readily available in Stanly
County and has been recognized as a valu-
able source of nutrients, especially when in-
corporated into the soil (1, 19).
The erodibility of the soil under each
cropping system, as measured by the cover
management (C) factor, was obtained from
the universal soil loss equation guidebook
for North Carolina (27) or, where these were
not available, from calculations made by
SCS personnel.
Soils information is from the Stanly
County soil survey. Baseline yield estimates
by soil type are averages weighted by per-
cent of total county land area in each soil
classification multiplied by the estimated
yield for that soil. Information about the ef-
fect of low-input practices on crop yield by
soil type was not available. However, a com-
Net returns to land, management, and risk for conventional and low-input,
sustainable cropping systems in Stanley County, North Carolina*
Conventional Crops
System
"•.: Crop(s)
Before
Program
Payments
After
Program
Payments
Low-Input Crops
Before
Program
Payments
After
Program
Payments-^
" " . •'•-.. •••-•••- «,/. — ; —
Rotation
Rotation
Rotation
Continuous
Continuous
(no-till)
Continuous
Corn-soybean
Corn-Wheat/soybean
Hay-hay-Corn-soybean
Corn
Corn '
Soybean
*Based on a composite farm with soils
tNet benefits after set-aside costs.
: •• ' '•• • ' •."•." '•• --.'•.. .' :-•• ' -' . . .'
8
45
:•; 37
— 10
22
. - 1 , ' •
similar to
27 '•-.,.; 9
87
48
27
- 67
-1 ,":-;:
70
37
•• .-4 -••-•;•
:. . — •:••'.••
43
28
/ 104
48
28
:' . ' — ; '•
:43
farms jn Stanly County.
' ••:•"• •• '••: '••••• -.•-'•••'•.•• '•
. - • - . . • • • - -- .
parison over several studies showed a rea-
sonably consistent decline of 10 percent in
corn yields for low-inut systems and no
reduction in soybean yields nationally.1
Yields were adjusted upward for no-till corn
and downward for crops grown continuously
and for low-inut corn. Therefore, no-tillage
rotation crops had the greatest yield advan-
tage, while low-input monocultures experi-
enced the greatest yield disadvantage. Low-
input rotation crops yielded similarly to con-
ventional corn in a monoculture.
Production costs were calculated for each
system based on information collected from
state extension specialists, North Carolina
agricultural extension service field crop bud-
gets, and previous economic research in
Stanly County (10). The production prac-
tices and input levels are typical for Stanly
County. Cost figures include only direct
variable costs and interest on Operating cap-
ital, and they reflect current input prices. It
was assumed that fanners receive no gov-
ernment program benefits other than defi-
ciency payments." Commodity prices, gov-
ernment target prices, and set-aside require-
ments are averages of those forecasted by the
Food and Agriculture Policy Research In-
stitute (FAPRI) for 1989-1990 to 1994-1995
(7).
Stanly County results
Conservation compliance did indeed in-
fluence the projected profitability of low-
input agriculture in Stanly County. A farm
with 100 percent of its cropland in program
base would earn the most by participating
in government commodity programs regard-
'Holloway, Herb A., and Dana L. Hoag. 1989. "Goals and
Methods of Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture: Implications
for Economics." Paper presented at the Southern Agricul-
tural Economics Association meeting, Nashville, Tennessee.
less of conservation compliance cropping re-
strictions. The relative benefit of commodity
programs was large compared to compliance
costs, and both the best low-input, sustain-
able and conventional systems used all of the
farm's base. However, the most profitable
system, which was a low-input, corn-wheat/
soybean rotation, was no longer optimal
with the introduction of conservation com-
pliance because it exceeded the maximum
allowable soil loss limit. The conventional
corn-wheat/soybean rotation was the most
profitable system meeting conservation com-
pliance rules.
The only low-input system meeting the
erosion limit, hay-hay-corn-soybeans, was
less profitable than the conventional corn-
wheat/soybean rotation primarily because it
did not use all of the farm's base. For ex-
ample, the per-acre return for the hay-hay-
corn-soybean rotation was $48. Eleven dol-
lars were from government payments. The
more profitable conventional corn-wheat/
soybean system earned $87, including $42
from government payments. The hay rota-
tion used only 25 percent of the farm's base,
while the corn-wheat/soybeans system used
100 percent.
If the corn-wheat/soybean option were not
available, no-till corn would be the most
profitable conservation system. If a policy
were implemented to remove the $45 pro-
gram payment advantage for corn, low-input
soybeans would be more profitable. How-
ever, this system would require the farmer
to exit commodity programs because low-
input soybeans result in highly erodible
soils. Therefore, with corn receiving more
favorable benefits compared to low-input,
soil conservation wins out over low-input;
without this favorable treatment, low-input
is more profitable than soil-conserving no-
till corn. For this example, soil conservation
January-February 1990 73
-------
and reduced input use through low-input are
at odds. Even a program to equate low-input
and corn payments would not alter this.
It was most profitable for the farms with
50 and 25 percent of total cropland in pro-
gram base to drop out of government com-
modity programs completely and to grow
100 acres of the low-input, com-wheat/soy-
bean rotation. These results occurred at each
level of base acreage, both with and without
conservation compliance rules in effect. In
these cases, the low-input crop used too
much base to be allowed on the whole farm.
More money is earned by devoting all acre-
age to the low-input, com-wheat/soybean
rotation and receiving revenues only from
crop sales than would be realized by restrict-
ing the acres of rotation and receiving gov-
ernment payments.
Although it is not profitable to use com-
modity programs on farms with 25 or 50
percent base acreage, the hay rotation is rela-
tively more competitive with continuous
corn and the corn-wheat/soybean system
than before because it can be used on all 100
acres without exceeding base acreage limits.
The other systems could be grown on only
one-half or one-quarter of the acreage be-
cause they use an acre of base for each acre
of the system. Therefore, low-input rotations
are more competitive on farms with relative-
ly little base acreage.
Summary and conclusions
Conservation compliance can affect adop-
tion of low-input systems. While both re-
duced inputs and reduced erosion are goals
of the Food Security Act, only erosion is ad-
dressed through conservation compliance.
Therefore, erosion objectives will be met,
but sometimes with unintentional neglect of
low-input objectives.
Only those participating in government
commodity programs are directly affected
by conservation compliance, which address-
es certain disincentives for soil conservation
in commodity programs. Sometimes, reduced
erosion increases the use of low-input, sus-
tainable systems, such as rotations that in-
corporate grass or legume hays. However,
conservation systems are not always low-in-
put systems. For example, many would ar-
gue that conservation tillage increases input
use and leads to greater water pollution.
Conservation compliance made low-input
systems less economial than a soil-conserv-
ing conventional system on a composite
North Carolina farm with all of its cropland
in base. In this example, increased chemical
use was traded for reduced soil erosion.
However, on a farm with less base, it was
profitable to escape conservation compliance
by exiting the commodity programs to use
a low-input system that resulted in more soil
erosion.
When commodity programs are a major
part of a farmer's income, conservation sys-
tems will be the most important objective,
even at the risk of sacrificing a low-input
system. However, when the benefits of the
program are insufficient to justify com-
pliance, a farmer may switch to any rotation
desired. This may or may not motivate a
switch to a low-input, sustainable system,
but at least the erosion and base restrictions
will no longer be imposing a disadvantage
on the low-input systems. For farms with
relatively little base, conservation compli-
ance will increase the relative profitability
of low-input approaches because rotations
control erosion but may not be penalized by
reduced commodity program receipts.
Our results demonstrate that low-input
goals cannot always be achieved when con-
serving soil, especially because many low-
input, sustainable systems rely on tillage to
compensate for reduced chemical use. Nev-
ertheless, conservation plans could also con-
tain low-input objectives. The Soil Conser-
vation Service and the Extension Service
could revise the alternative conservation
systems (ACS) used in conservation plan-
ning to meet both objectives. Individual cir-
cumstances relevant to each farm operation
should dictate the relative importance of
each goal. Conservation systems that in-
crease infiltration and use of nitrogen may
be inappropriate where groundwater nitrates
are a problem. However, systems that in-
crease infiltration may be more appropriate
where algae blooms in lakes are trouble-
some.
SCS and Extension could develop a com-
parative assessment of the impact on re-
sources and the environment (which we have
dubbed CAIRE) for each ACS that warns of
possible environmental concerns related to
that particular system. The CAIRE's would
build awareness and understanding about the
relationships between soil conservation sys-
tems and other low-input systems without
requiring the Extension Service or SCS to
impose low-input, sustainable agriculture re-
quirements prematurely before more infor-
mation is known. Most importantly, the
CAIREs encourage more consideration of
low-input objectives in a broad sense with-
out interupting or competing with the soil
conservation objectives of conservation
compliance.
Finally, this study demonstrates only that
conflicts can occur. The net outcome of con-
servation compliance on the use of low-in-
put, sustainable systems is unknown and will
depend on all fanners' personal circum-
stances. Nevertheless, conservation compli-
ance could have a more positive affect on
low-input, sustainable approaches if a na-
tional plan were instituted to support their
joint consideration.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Barker, James C. 1989. Livestock waste sam-
pling, analysis and calculation of land applica-
tion rates. EBAE 111-84. Dept. Bio. and Agr.
Eng., N. Car. State Univ., Raleigh.
2. Bergmark, Christine. 1985. Limited-input corn
production for limited-resource farmers in the
piedmont, North Carolina. M.S. thesis, N. Car.
State Univ., Raleigh.
3. Butel, Frederick H., and Gilbert W. Gillespie,
Jr. 1988. Preferences for crop production prac-
tices among conventional and alternative
farmers. Am. J. Alternative Agr. 3: 11-17.
4. Cacek, T, andL. Langer. 1986. The economic
implications of organic farming. Am. J. Alter-
native Agr. 1: 25-29.
5. Council for Agricultural Science and Technol-
ogy. 1988. Long term viability of U.S. Agricul-
ture. Rept. No. 114. Ames, Iowa.
6. Dunphy, E. J. 1986. 1986 soybean on-farm test
report. N. Car. Agri. Ext. Serv., Raleigh,.
7. Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute.
1988. FAPRI review—November 1988 10-year
baseline. Univ. Mo., Columbia, and Iowa State
Univ., Ames.
8. Hoag, Dana L. 1988. Handbook on the conser-
vation provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act.
N. Car. Agri. Ext. Serv., Raleigh
9. Hoag, Dana L., and Kevin E. Jack. 1989. Adop-
tion of low-input systems under conservation
compliance. Working paper, Dept. Econ. and
Bus., N. Car. State Univ., Raleigh.
10. Holloway, Herbert A. 1989. A mixed integer pro-
gramming model for analysis of the impact of
conservation compliance. M.S. thesis, N. Car.
State Univ., Raleigh.
11. Holloway, Herb A., and Dana L. Hoag. 1989.
Farm production decisions under conservation
compliance. Working Paper No. 148. Dept.
Econ. and Bus., N. Car. State Univ., Raleigh.
12. Hunter, Carol. 1985. An agronomic and eco-
nomic evaluation of limited input soybean pro-
duction practices. M.S. thesis, N. Car. State
Univ., Raleigh.
13. Madden, Patrick. 1989. Policy options for a more
sustainable agriculture. In Increasing Under-
standing of Public Problems and Policies -1988.
Farm Foun., Oak Brook, 111. pp. 134-142.
14. North Carolina Department of Agriculture. 1988.
North Carolina agricultural statistics: 1988.
Raleigh.
15. Papendick, R. L, L. F. Elliot, and R. B. Dahl-
gren. 1986. Environmental consequences of mod-
ern production agriculture: How can alternative
agriculture address these issues and concerns?
Am. J. Alternative Agr. 1: 3-10.
16. Reichelderer, Katherine. 1989. Policy issues aris-
ing from implementation of the 1985 farm bill
conservation provisions. In Increasing Under-
standing of Public Problems and Policies -1988.
Farm Found., Oak Brook, 111. pp. 15-124.
17. Robinson, Kenneth L. 1989. Farm and food
policies and their consequences. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
18. Sims, J. Thomas. 1987. Agronomic evaluation
of poultry manure as a nitrogen source for con-
ventional and no-tillage com. Agron. J. 79:
563-570.
19. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. Report
and recommendations on organic farming.
Washington, D.C.
20. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1981. The uni-
versal soil loss equation with factor values for
North Carolina. Soil Cons. Serv., Raleigh, N.
Car.
21. U.S. House of Representatives. 1988. Low-input
farming systems: Benefits and barriers. House
Rpt. 100-1097. Washington, D.C.
22. Young, Douglas L., and Walter A. Goldstein.
1988. How government farm programs dis-
courage sustainable cropping systems. Proc. of
Farm. Syst. Res. Symp. 1987. Univ. Ark., Fay-
atteville. pp. 443-459. O
74 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
Henry Smith
Sustainability of dryland cropping
in the Palouse: An historical view
By Michael D. Jennings, Baird C. Miller, David F. Bezdicek, and David Granatstein
A THOUGH technological advances
and varietal improvements have
nearly doubled grain yields since
World War II, the land resource in the
Palouse region of the Pacific Northwest has
undergone significant deterioration over the
past 100 years (12, 21, 32, 33, 37). This his-
torical trend has sparked concern about the
ability to sustain present crop production
levels over the long term. Degradation of the
land base has resulted from significant top-
soil losses, changes in soil structure and
chemistry, and reduced soil organic matter.
These factors are the consequence of tillage
methods, crop rotations, and fertility prac-
tices used during this century.
An historical perspective on the impacts
of the cereal-based agricultural system on
the land resource is useful in identifying
changes that will help sustain the produc-
tivity of the region's soils. A look at histor-
Michael D, Jennings is a research associate, Baird
C. Miller is an extensison agronomist for dryland
cropping systems, David F. Bezdicek is a professor
of soil microbiology, and David Granatstein is a
research associate in the Department of Agronomy
and Soils, Washington State University, Pullman,
99164. The program on which this article is based
was funded in pan by federal funds. Additional finan-
cial support was provided by the Northwest Area
Foundation and Washington State University.
ical data does not imply a return to pre-
industrial agriculture. Rather, it offers an op-
portunity to use previous research and in-
novation in which society has already in-
vested. With limited resources to devote to
solving current agricultural production prob-
lems, a blend of pertinent historical wisdom
with emerging technology is needed. More
than a century of agricultural research and
field experience in the Palouse has provid-
ed insight to help address issues of sus-
tainability for dryland farming.
Eras of agricultural history
Four major historical eras of farming tech-
nology in the Palouse have been identified.
These provide reference points for prioritiz-
ing future research, policy, and farm prac-
tices as agriculture moves into an era of
resource conservation and land stewardship.
Sodbusting (1870-1910). The upland
bunchgrass prairie, which made up most of
the Palouse, was first planted to grain in the
mid-1870s. By 1890 most of the region was
in private ownership, and by 1895 a great
deal of the tillable land had been plowed.
At first, farms were often homesteads that
practiced diverse subsistence and commer-
cial agriculture, including livestock, fruit,
and field crop production. Many farms,
however, soon moved toward specialized,
large-scale grain production, similar to what
was occurring in California at the time (15).
After breaking the sod, crops of wheat,
oats, and barley were planted with a mini-
mum of tillage—horse-drawn single- or dou-
ble-bottom moldboard plowing and harrow-
ing. Fertilizers were not used, and grain/pas-
ture rotations were practiced occasionally.
Initially, summer fallowing was not wide-
spread, but more frequent tillage soon be-
came popular, with some farmers tilling a
fallow field 6 to 10 times in a season (A.
McGregor, personal communication, 1989).
The organic matter content of soil recently
converted from native prairie to grain pro-
duction was five to eight percent, depend-
ing on the landscape position (29). In the
early 1900s the Rosalia Chamber of Com-
merce (27) reported per-acre yields as high
as 38 bushels of wheat, 95 bushels of barley,
,and BO bushels of oats after a good grow-
ing season.
Soil erosion was not recorded as a signifi-
cant problem, although Spillman of Wash-
ington State College began lecturing on its
potential danger. Local flooding in Pullman
and Colfax during this era did not produce
significant amounts of sediment (9). Agri-
January-February 1990 75
-------
cultural literature of the time included
reports on grain smuts and their prevention
by seed treatment; discussion of the rela-
tionship between nitrogen and humus; and
methods for growing alfalfa, grasses, clo-
vers, and peas.
Liquidating the organic capital Q.91Q to
tn!d-1930s). During the second and third
decades of the 20th century, three major
changes in farming practices altered Palouse
soil conditions: summer fallowing, wide-
spread cropping of dry peas, and stubble
burning. These changes resulted in severe
soil erosion and a depletion of soil organic
matter. Kaiser (9) reorted that the most
severe, sustained annual soil loss by water
erosion 5n the Palouse occurred during this
era.
Tillage-intensive summer fallowing be-
came widely practiced during this period.
In the drier areas soil moisture had to be
stored one year in every two or three for a
grain crop. By tilling the soil surface dur-
ing the dry summer season, a dust mulch
two to six inches deep was maintained over
moist soil, preventing the moisture from
reaching the surface, where it could evapo-
rate. Also, by preventing any plants from
growing in the soil, soil moisture loss by
plant transpiration was eliminated. Because
no alternative crop or management strategy
compares economically with a wheat-sum-
mer fallow system, it remains a standard
practice today, but is less tillage-intensive.
In annual cropping areas, however, sum-
mer fallow was discouraged by the agricul-
tural experiment stations (35). It was used
Early farming practices In the Palouse
left short straw stubble that was easily
Incorporated back Into the soil and straw
stacks remaining after threshing were left
for livestock use.
Location and precipitation zones (inches per
year) of the Palouse region.
in these areas to control weeds and to build
up nitrate-nitrogen for the subsequent grain
crop. For many years, farmers received
payments for regular tillage of summer
fallow ground to keep weeds in check (A.
McGregor, personal communication, 1989).
Mineralization of nitrogen from organic
matter resulted in nitrate accumulation under
summer fallow conditions. Largely a micro-
bial process, mineralization is enhanced by
adequate soil moisture and elevated soil
temperatures created by summer fallowing.
The advent of herbicides and nitrogen fer-
tilizers has reduced the need for summer
fallow in the higher rainfall areas, but it is
still used occasionally to satisfy government
set-aside requirements.
Summer fallowing sets up a degrading,
positive-feedback system of enhanced nitro-
gen mineralization, loss of soil organic mat-
ter, and increased soil erosion. Because
crops are not grown every year, the amount
of organic matter returned to the soil is re-
duced. The loss of organic matter resulting
from tillage without added residue reduces
the soil's ability to absorb precipitation,
thereby increasing the potential surface
University of Washington Libraries
water runoff. The increased surface water
runoff erodes topsoil, which contains most
of the organic material in the soil profile.
Fall and winter precipitation following sum-
mer fallow in the annual cropping areas may
not be fully absorbed when the soil mois-
ture profile is not depleted by crops during
the fallow season, thus contributing further
to surface water runoff. Tillage methods
used to maintain a finely pulverized sum-
mer fallow soil surface also reduce soil ag-
gregate stability, further increasing the sus-
ceptibility of the soil to runoff and erosion.
Cultivation of field peas as a substitute for
summer fallow in the higher rainfall zone
of the Palouse became widespread by 1920.
This resulted in a grain-legume annual crop-
ping system. Pea cropping, however, also re-
sulted in more intensive cultivation, burn-
ing of crop residue, and the appearance of
many new annual weeds (9).
Prior to combine harvesting, grain crops
were cut either with a horse-drawn binder
or a header and hauled to stationary thresh-
ers. With the binder, the stubble was gener-
ally short, easily plowed under and worked
into the soil. The header left long stubble
that often was burned. Straw stacks left by
threshing were used for livestock feed. By
the 1920s, combines were widely used, but
until 1933 there were no straw spreaders on
combines. Straw was left in heavy windrows
that could not be worked easily into the soil.
By 1933, 94 percent of the pea residue and
78 percent of the grain stubble was burned
annually (9). Burning of crop residue caused
a more rapid decline in soil organic matter
than any other management practice (7). By
1922, the average organic matter content of
soils in the Palouse had been reduced 35
percent (29), and by 1950 it had been re-
duced 47 percent (70) from the original
levels.
Because of the compounding problems of
soil erosion and the loss of organic matter,
set in motion primarily by summer fallow-
ing and crop residue burning, technological
advances in the production system did not
result in grain yield improvements. From
1900 to 1935 the winter wheat yield in the
state of Washington averaged a nearly con-
stant 23 bushels per acre (24). Pubols and
Heisig observed, "Average yields were
maintained largely by the use of improved
methods of farming and by the introduction
of superior varieties of wheat, even though
the soil resources were deteriorating and
precipitation was decreasing. The critical
status of the soil resources and their rapid
rate of decline suggest that effective soil and
moisture conservation methods must be
adopted in order to maintain yields as other
countervailing forces may be inadequate"
(24).
76 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
Power farming (mid-1930s to mid-1940s).
Farming practices of the early 20th century
were changed not only by technological ad-
vances but also by increased awareness of
the problems of soil fertility and erosion.
The most important change during this era
was in the source of traction for tillage
equipment, from horses to tractors. Other
significant changes were in the management
of crop residues, crop rotations, annual
grain-pea recropping, and the decline of
livestock operations.
By 1935, most farmers in the Palouse re-
gion had replaced horses with tractors. Till-
age equipment pulled by tractors became
larger and heavier. Rodweeders used to
mulch the soil in summer fallowing were
wider, disks were heavier, and plows in-
creased from two bottoms to five or six.
Most significantly, ground speed and the
number of tillage operations were greatly in-
creased, which increased the rate of tillage
erosion (9).
Tillage erosion results when the mechan-
ical action of tillage performed on slopes
moves soil downslope. Almost all tillage
gradually moves the topsoil down the slope
(16). Busacca and associates (2) showed a
downhill soil movement of 13 tons per acre
from a single plowing on a six-degree slope
in the Palouse, indicating that tillage erosion
could be as significant as erosion from
water. Kaiser (9) estimated that, by the end
of this era, all of the topsoil was lost from
about 10 percent of the farmland, and 25 to
75 percent of the topsoil was eroded from
an additional 60 percent of the Palouse
region.
In response to the problems of soil ero-
sion and soil fertility, a number of impor-
tant changes in farming practices were fos-
tered by the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture's Soil Conservation Service in coopera-
tion with Washington State University, the
University of Idaho, and Oregon State Uni-
versity. Long-term research on soil conser-
vation began in 1930 at the Soil and Water
Conservation Experiment Station near Pull-
man, Washington. By the late 1930s, results
from this work were applied to some Palouse
farms. The following practices were includ-
ed: within-field drainages were planted to
permanent grasses; hilltop windbreaks were
planted; straw spreaders installed on com-
bines eliminated the heavy straw windrows,
which improved crop residue incorporation
and reduced the need for burning; grass-
alfalfa pastures were included in crop rota-
tions with grains and peas.
Even though these practices did slow the
rate of soil degradation, they were not uni-
versally adopted. Summer following and
crop residue burning continued. Erosion
control efforts suffered a severe setback
Summer Fallow - Residue Burning
Increased Soil Erosion
Reduced Infiltration
during World War II, when grain produc-
tion was accelerated under the Food for
Freedom program (52). During this time,
crop rotations that included perennial grass-
legume pasture or green manure crops were
abandoned for more intensive wheat re-
cropping and wheat-pea rotations.
Agrichemical and technological age (late
1940s to 1980s). The most dramatic chang-
es in agricultural practices have taken place
since World War II. Crop production out-
put increased by extensive use of manufac-
tured inputs. Average grain yields in the
Palouse almost doubled during this period
because of the development of high .yield-
ing, semi-dwarf wheat varieties, synthetic
nitrogen fertilizer technology, a wide array
of pesticides, and improved field equipment.
In addition, government programs to sub-
sidize prices for wheat and barley and to
support research and development of new
agricultural technologies have greatly influ-
enced farming practices in the Palouse.
By the end of the Korean War, more than
half of the farmers in the Palouse included
grass-legume crops in rotation with grain
and peas (28). At that same time, the prin-
cipal nitrogen source for crops was shifting
from dependence on soil organic matter
mineralization and fixation by legumes to the
application of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers.
Nitrogen fertilization dramatically increased
yields and helped to maintain soil organic
matter levels (23) when compared with un-
fertilized cash grain rotations. Complex soil-
building rotations were abandoned in favor .
of the more profitable, fertilized cash grain
rotations. Yet nitrogen fertilizer did not fully
substitute for the benefits of these long-term
rotations, such as weed control and im-
proved soil structure (II). Verle Kaiser, an
influential soil conservationist (9), regard-
ed commercial fertilizer as a good supple-
ment to a sound grass-legume crop rotation
Degrading positive-feedback causes of
reduced soil productivity.
that was needed to conserve the soil.
The use of synthetic fertilizers also assist-
ed in residue management. Prior to the ad-
vent of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, not only
was crop production limited by nitrogen
availability but the breakdown of crop resi-
due often was limited by nitrogen availabil-
ity, which led to yield reductions. Fertiliz-
ers made it feasible to incorporate straw in-
to the upper soil surface, providing better
erosion control and maintenance of the soil
organic matter, instead of burning residue
or burying it with a moldboard plow. This
gave rise to tillage practices known as "stub-
ble-mulching," "conservation tillage," "min-
imum-tillage," and "trashy farming."
Extensive use of ammonium-based nitro-
gen fertilizer has been linked to direct and
indirect alteration of soil characteristics. Soil
pH of virgin soils in the Palouse region were
near neutral, ranging from 6.6 to 7.4. By
1980, the surface soils of 65 percent of sev-
eral counties in the higher rainfall, more
productive areas of eastern Washington and
northern Idaho had a pH of less than 6.0
(14). This soil acidification in the Palouse
region has been attributed largely to the
nitrification of ammonium-based nitrogen
fertilizers, not to acid rainfall or crop re-
moval of nutrients. Nitrification, however,
is acid-producing whether the source is fer-
tilizer or legumes.
Soil acidity can reduce microbial activity,
the availability of some nutrients, and the
productivity of many legumes often used to
diversify rotations and fix nitrogen. Soil
acidification also causes an increase in the
water-soluble silica in the plow layer (6).
Douglas and associates (6) speculated that
this reaction could provide silica for cemen-
tation, a potential factor in hardpan forma-
tion. The significant role of heavy farm
January-February 1990 77
-------
Soil erosion In the Palouse, such as this
severe snowbank erosion near Oaksdale,
Washington, resulted from the advent of
power farming, exemplified by this circa
1938 photo (below) of a farmer plowing
fields after residue burning.
machinery in soil compaction, however,
must also be recognized. Although soil acid-
ification can be corrected with lime appli-
cations, the Palouse region shows little evi-
dence of crop yield response and economic
benefit to this practice.
Researchers have established that anhy-
II
" '
/ r
drous ammonia, a widely used nitrogen
source, increases the water-soluble organic
carbon in soils under experimental condi-
tions (18, 20, 31). This water-soluble organic
carbon subsequently is transformed by the
microbial processes of assimilation and dis-
similaation to biomass-carbon and carbon
dioxide, respectively (19). Myers and Thien
(17) showed a synergistic effect between am-
monium and phosphorous fertilizer com-
pounds of increasing soil organic matter
solubility. Yet nitrogen fertilizers contribute
significantly to soil organic matter through
the addition of crop residue. The long-term
net impact of nitrogen fertilizers on overall
soil condition has not been clearly docu-
mented. In addition, the productivity and
profitability of dryland cereal cropping cur-
rently relies on regular fertilizer use.
Soil productivity for wheat in the Palouse
is directly related to topsoil depth and top-
soil organic matter content (23). The top-
soil depth and soil organic matter in turn in-
fluence the soil moisture available for crop
production. Several studies (12, 21, 33) have
predicted what wheat yields would have
been if erosion had been controlled and how
continued erosion could affect future yields.
The conclusion is that technological ad-
vances and varietal improvements during
this period have masked soil productivity
losses resulting from agriculturally related
soil degradation.
Unless soil degradation is halted or tech-
nological advances continue to provide yield
increases, soil productivity and crop yields
will decline as topsoil becomes thinner, and
the cost of production will increase. Soil
degradation also increases the need for ex-
ternal production inputs, most of which rely
on nonrenewable fossil resources.
The choice of crop management systems
can influence soil characteristics in the long
term. In a recent study, soil properties on
a Palouse farm using typical methods of crop
production (Farm A) were compared with
those on an adjacent farm (Farm B) that used
longer crop rotations, green manure crops,
and grass (1, 22, 25, 26). Farm A was first
plowed in 1908 and Farm B in 1909. Farm
A began using commercial fertilizers in 1948
and pesticides in the early 1950s. Farm B
did not use synthetic fertilizer but did ap-
ply pesticides to a limited extent starting in
the mid-1960s. Soil from Farm B, compared
to Farm A, had higher organic matter, ca-
tion exchange capacity, total nitrogen, ex-
tractable potassium, water content, pH,
polysaccharide content, enzyme levels, and
microbial biomass. The soil from Farm B
also had better tilth (lower modulus of rup-
ture, more granular structure, less hard and
more friable consistency) and, perhaps most
important, about six inches more topsoil.
78 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
The soil differences were mostly attributed
to the different rotations and, to a lesser ex-
tent, slightly different tillage practices.
The Palouse was, and is, recognized as
one of the most erodible landscapes in the
United States (30). Annual soil erosion rates
on some slopes are 90 to 200 tons per acre
(200 to 450 tons per hectare), with an overall
average erosion rate of 14 tons per acre (37
tons per hectare) (32), which is estimated
to be three times a sustainable loss rate (5).
The 1982 National Resources Inventory
showed the Palouse to have the second
highest rate of sheet and rill erosion among
the nation's major land resource areas (13).
Estimates of the tons of soil lost via erosion
per ton of grain produced range from 7 to
8.7 (5, 32). The Palouse River has deposited
more than 535,000 tons of agriculturally
generated sediment annually into the lower
Snake River and has been recognized as a
point source of pollution (32). Its water
quality was, and is, impaired by organic
matter enrichment, loss of riparian vegeta-
tion, elevated temperatures, and suspended
sediment (32, 34).
The extent and intensity of crop produc-
tion in the Palouse has contributed to a sig-
nificant reduction in native plant and ani-
mal habitat diversity. In one representative
Palouse watershed, less than 10 percent of
the surface area was left to support non-crop
vegetation, consisting of places too steep or
too wet to plow, roadsides, and rock out-
crops (8). Existing natural areas were found
to be degraded in terms of original eco-
system structure, function, and size. For
example, the function of riparian wetlands
in reducing stream sediment had been al-
most eliminated because of alterations of
their structure and size. Natural areas were
being affected by regular burning, isolation
by adjacent plowing, and direct or indirect
herbicide application. Few native plant
species and no native plant communities re-
mained. Invasion by exotic plant species also
has significantly affected native plant com-
munities.
Federal farm commodity programs have
reduced farmers' flexibility in managing
their soil resource base (3). These programs
are designed to stabilize commodity prices
and assure adequate farm incomes. Young
and Goldstein (36) have argued that the
commodity programs encourage intensive
production of a few select crops by restrict-
ing program payments to certain crops and
by making payments based on historical
acreages and production levels. This has
discouraged diversification and the use of
beneficial, soil-conserving crop rotations
and has increased production pressures on
the cropped land, further jeopardizing the
soil resource. In the Palouse, the programs
Wheat
Yield
Ell/Ac.
5% Organic Manor
4% Org
3% Organic Matter
2% Organic Matter
Depth of Topsoil (Inches)
Relationship of topsoil depth and winter
wheat yields at differing soil organic
matter levels under annual cropping
conditions (23).
have encouraged producers to set aside their
least productive and often most erodible
land. This set-aside acreage is frequently
summer-fallowed, setting the stage for fur-
ther degradation in soil productivity.
Departures from sustainability
Farming practices in the Palouse grain-
producing region over the last 100 years have
not maintained the resource base. Continual
degradation of soil productivity has been
overshadowed by tremendous technological
and varietal improvement, increased produc-
tion inputs, and the extensive depth of the
original loess soils. Some practices have
been more detrimental to long-term soil pro-
ductivity than others. These include tillage-
intensive summer fallowing, the abandon-
ment of complex soil-building crop rota-
tions, the lack of widespread adoption of soil
conservation practices, burning of crop resi-
due, frequent tillage for "clean cultivation,"
and "downhill" moldboard plowing. Most
of these practices have been used in the past
because of their clear short-term economic
benefit, government policies, or lack of suit-
able alternatives.
The future era
During the last 10 years, significant chang-
es have begun to take place, signaling a new
era of conservation farming. Adoption of
conservation tillage systems, such as no-till,
mulch-till, and reduced tillage for grain pro-
duction, in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon
has increased in recent years. In 1988, the
cereal acreage on which conservation tillage
methods were practiced was 34 percent, up
from 24 percent in 1982 (4). This trend is
expected to continue, particularly as the con-
servation provisions of the 1985 Food Se-
curity Act are implemented.
One of the major sources of new conser-
vation farming technologies in the Pacific
Northwest has been the multistate, interdis-
ciplinary STEEP (Solutions to Environmen-
tal and Economic Problems) research pro-
gram. More than 100 scientists from the land
grant universities and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Ser-
vice in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon have
Predicted winter wheat production loss
from soil erosion in the Palouse River
Basin (32).
Wheat
Yield
BU./AC.
60-
50-
40-
30-
20-
Acreage Controls End
Acreage Controls Begin
-Potential Average
Wheat Production
Without Soil
Erosion
-^-Average Long Term
Wheat Production
Semi - Dwarf Wheat Introduced
Green Manure
t— Stripe Rust
Commercial Fertilizer
1930
1940
1950
I
1960
1970
1980
1990
January-February 1990 79
-------
participated in STEEP research efforts for
the last 15 years. The program has focused
on developing new technologies for more
efficient farming systems that conserve soil
and water resources.
During the last decade, an equipment
technology revolution occurred, which fa-
cilitated the adoption of conservation prac-
tices. In the mid-1970s, growers had few
planting and fertilizer equipment options for
conservation tillage. Only six conservation
tillage drills were available. Today, more
than 60 models of conservation tillage drills
are available commercially (R. Veseth, per-
sonal communication, 1990). Previously,
fertilizers had to be surface-broadcast in no-
till systems, which typically resulted in
lower fertilizer use efficiency, limited yield
potential, and increased infestation of grassy
weeds. Now, more than 75 percent of these
conservation tillage drills are designed to
deep-band fertilizers for improved root
access and reduced field operations.
Farmers are gradually shifting to conser-
vation systems making use of tillage imple-
ments that leave more surface residue and
«i rougher soil surface, as well as reducing
the number of tillage operations. The chisel
plow is beginning to replace the moldboard
plow, except when seed burial is necessary
for difficult fall grassy weeds, such as downy
brome. Major fertilizer dealers in the area
are developing and promoting heavy-duty
fertilizer applicators (injectors) for minimum
tillage "shank-and-seed" systems. The ap-
plicators operate without prior tillage and
eliminate the normal primary tillage opera-
tions. Farmers then seed with conventional
drills after a herbicide application or pre-
plant cultivation. The number of farms us-
ing divided slopes and contour stripcropping
has also increased significantly.
The future holds many opportunities for
improving the conservation of resources and
providing better stewardship of the land.
Policy-makers are exploring ways to make
government farm programs more flexible,
which would allow for more diverse, soil-
building crop rotations. Longer crop rota-
tions can help to break pest cycles, reduc-
ing pesticide use. As a result of the conser-
vation compliance guidelines of the 1985
Food Security Act, conservation practices
will be applied on a wider scale.
The design of management systems will
have to address water quality concerns.
More efficient use of purchased inputs will
be necessary to reduce the environmental
and economic risks associated with farming.
Farms could be divided into smaller man-
agement units, differentiated by landscape
position, slope, aspect, and soil productivity,
allowing for more site-specific fertilizer and
herbicide recommendations. As an alter-
native to summer fallow, low-water-use,
soil-building crops could be grown on set-
aside acreage. Results of the biotechnology
revolution will be integrated into pest con-
trol strategies on the form. Farming will be-
come even more information-intensive, re-
quiring new methods to integrate and make
use of new knowledge and technologies.
To maintain the highly productive farm-
ing systems in the Palouse, and in other ag-
ricultural areas, the perspectives and ap-
proaches used in designing forming systems
must be broadened. By integrating the
historical record, current knowledge, and fu-
ture opportunities, the likelihood of sustain-
ing the land resource and the agriculture it
supports can be improved.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Bolton, H., L. F. Elliott, R. I. Papendick, and
D. F. Bezdicek. 1985. Soil microbial biomass
and selected soil enzyme activities: Effects of fer-
tilization and cropping practices. Soil Biol.
Biochem. 17: 297-302.
2. Busacca, A. J., D. K. McCool, R. I. Papendick,
and D. L. %ung. 1985. Dynamic impacts of ero-
sion processes on productivity of soils in the
Palouse. In Erosion and Soil Productivity. Am.
Soc. Agr. Eng., St. Joseph, Mich. pp. 152-169.
3. Committee on Government Relations. 1988. Low
input farming systems: Benefits and barriers.
House Rpt. 100-1,097. U.S. House of Rep.,
Washington, D.C.
4. Conservation Technology Information Center.
1988.1988 national survey conservation tillage
practices. West Lafayette, Ind. 144 pp.
5. Donaldson, N. C. 1980. Soil survey of Whitman
County, Washington. Soil Cons. Serv., U.S.
Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C. 141 pp.
6. Douglas, C. L., R. R. Allmaras, and N. C.
Roager. 1984. Silicic acid and oxidizable car-
bon movement in a Walla Walla silt loam as
related to long-term management. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 48: 156-162.
7. Jaffri, M. Z. 1956. Effects of farming systems
on soil losses, organic matter changes, and
trends in productivity of land in the Palouse
wheat-pea area. M.S. thesis. Wash. State Coll.,
Pullman. 138 pp.
8. Jennings, M. D, and J. P. Reganold. 1988. Policy
and reality of environmentally sensitive areas in
Whitman County, Washington, USA. Environ.
Manag. 12: 369-380.
9. Kaiser, V. G. 1961. Historical land use and ero-
sion in the Palouse—A reappraisal. Northwest
Sci. 35: 139-153.
10. Kaiser, V. G. Cultivation of soil in Palouse, Ritz-
ville, and Walla Walla from 1880-
1990. Data from Verle Kaiser collection archives,
Wash. State Univ. Libraries, Pullman.
11. Kent, R. L. 1957. Conservation crop rotations
in the Pacific Northwest. J. Soil and Water Cons.
12: 269-272.
12. Krauss, H. A., and R. R. Allmaras. 1982. Tech-
nology masks the effects of soil erosion on wheat
yields—A case study in Whitman County, Wash-
ington. In E. L. Schmidt and associates [eds.]
Determinants of Soil Lass Tolerance. Am. Soc.
Agron., Madison, Wise. pp. 75-86.
13. Lee, L. K. 1984. Land use and soil loss: A1982
update. J. Soil and Water Cons. 39: 226-228.
14. Mahler, R. L., A. R. Halvorson, and F. E.
Koehler. 1985. Long-term acidification of farm-
land in northern Idaho and eastern Washington.
Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 16: 83-95.
15. McGregor, A. 1982. Counting sheep: From open
range to agribusiness on the Columbia Plateau.
Univ. Wash. Press, Seattle. 482 pp.
16. Mech, S. J., and G. R. Free. 1942. Movement
of soils during tillage operations. Agr. Eng. 23:
379-382.
17. Myers, R. G., and S. J. Thien. 1988. Organic
matter solubility and soil reaction in an ammo-
nium and phospshorous application zone. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52: 516-522.
18. Norman, R. J., L. T. Kurtz, and F. J. Steven-
son. 1987. Solubilization of soil organic matter
by liquid anhydrous ammonia. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 51: 809-812.
19. Norman, R. J., J. T. Gilmour, and P. M. Gale.
1988. Transformations of organic matter solu-
bilized by anhydrous ammonia. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 52: 694-697.
20. Papendick, R. I., and J. F. Parr. 1966. Reten-
tion of anhydrous ammonia by soil: III. Dispers-
ing apparatus and resulting ammonia distribu-
tion. Soil Sci. 102: 193-201.
21. Papendick, R. L, D. L. Young, D. K. McCool,
and H. A. Krauss. 1985. Regional effects of soil
erosion on crop productivity—The Palouse area
of the Pacific Northwest. In R. F. Follett and B.
A. Stewart [eds.] Soil Erosion and Crop Prod-
uctivity. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wise. pp.
305-319.
22. Patten, A. G. 1982. Comparison of nitrogen and
phosphorus flows on an organic and convention-
al farm. M.S. thesis. Wash. State Univ., Pull-
man. 108 pp.
23. Pawson, W. W, O. L. Brough, J. P. Swanson,
and G. M. Homer. 1961. Economics of cropping
systems and soil conservation in the Palouse.
Tech. Bull. No. 2. Agr. Exp. Sta., Idaho,
Oregon, and Washington, and Agr. Res. Serv.,
U.S, Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C. 124 pp.
24. Pubols, B. H., and C. P. Heisig. 1937. Historical
and geographic aspects of wheat yields in
Washington. Bull. 355. Wash. State Univ. Agr.
Exp. Sta., Pullman. 25 pp.
25. Reganold, J. P., L. F. Elliott, and Y. L. Unger.
1987. Long-term effects of organic and conven-
tional farming on soil erosion. Nature 330:
370-372.
26. Reganold, J. P. 1988. Comparison of soil prop-
erties as influenced by organic and convention-
al farming systems. Am. J. Alternative Agr. 3:
144-155.
27. Rosalia Chamber of Commerce. 1906. On the
battleground, Rosalia, Washington: Vol. 1. In N.
W. Durham [ed.] Spokane and the Inland Em-
pire. Clarke Publ. Co., Spokane, Wash. p. 630.
28. Schwendiman, J., and V. Kaiser. 1960. Alfalfa
to replace sweetclover for dryland green manure
crop rotations in the Pacific Northwest. J. Soil
and Water Cons. 15: 257-263.
29. Sievers, F. J., and H. F. Holtz. 1922. The silt
loam, soils of eastern Washington and their man-
agement. Bull. 166. Wash. State Univ. Agr. Exp.
Sta., Pullman. 61 pp.
30. Steiner, F. R. 1987. The productive and erosive
Palquse environment. EB 1438. Coop. Ext.,
Wash. State Univ., Pullman. 42 pp.
31. Tomasiewicz, D. J., and J. L. Henry. 1985. The
effect of anhydrous ammonia applications on the
solubility of soil organic carbon. Canadian J.
SoiJ Sci. 65: 737-747.
32. U.S, Department of Agriculture. 1978. Palouse
cooperative river basin study. Washington, D.C.
182 pp.
33. Walker, D. J., and D. L. Young. 1982. Technical
progress in yields—No substitute for soil con-
servation. Current Info. Series No. 671. Univ.
Idaho Agr. Exp. Sta., Moscow. 5 pp.
34. Washington Department of Ecology. 1988. Draft
nonpoint source pollution assessment report.
Water Quality Program, Olympia, Wash. 119 pp.
35. Washington State College. 1915. Bunt or stink-
ing smut of wheat. Bull. 126. Agr. Exp. Sta.,
Pullman, Wash. 24 pp.
36. Young, D. L., and W. A. Goldstein. 1988. How
government farm programs discourage sustain-
able cropping systems: A U.S. case study. In How
Systems Work. Univ. Ark., Fayetteville. pp.
443-459.
37. Young, D. L., D. B. Taylor, and R. I. Papen-
dick. 1985. Separating erosion and technology
impacts on winter wheat yields in the Palouse:
A statistical approach. In Erosion and Soil Pro-
ductivity. Am. Soc. Agr. Eng., St. Joseph, Mich.
pp. 130-141. D
80 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
MOST agricultural crops and all grain
crops grown currently are annuals.
Given the proper conditions, these
crops can produce spectacular yields and
good profits. Annual crops, however, are not
necessarily the best choice for all situations,
especially on highly erodible or marginal
land. Soil erosion and other environmental
problems associated with annual crop pro-
duction currently are managed with such
practices as contouring, terracing, conserva-
tion tillage, wind erosion reduction methods
(2), and land set-asides.
Although these practices may control soil
erosion, they may be undesirable for other
reasons. For example, conservation tillage
tends to depend heavily on agricultural
chemicals that may leach into groundwater
supplies. Development of perennial grain
crops could provide farmers with an alter-
native that reduces soil erosion and improves
environmental aspects of crop production.
The concept of producing grain from well-
adapted, herbaceous perennials was first
presented by Wes Jackson in his book New
Roots for Agriculture (3). Grain production
from perennial grasses could provide an im-
portant alternative use for land that cannot
sustain annual crop production.
The advantages that perennial grains have
over annuals include year-round soil protec-
tion as well as lower annual inputs of labor
and materials. Mechanical field operations
in a perennial grain system are reduced
greatly because the soil is not worked each
year, thus saving fuel and labor costs. Seed
purchases and planting is done every 5 to
10 years instead of every year. Legumes
planted with perennial grains reduce the
need for commercial fertilizers.
A perennial grain/legume mixture can be
compared to a grass/legume pasture, but the
primary harvest product is grain from the
perennial grass rather than hay. In some
areas the value of perennial grain/legume
fields can be increased by cutting hay or
grazing the fields after yearly seed harvest.
In addition, a perennial grain cropping sys-
tem rebuilds soil structure by increasing or-
ganic matter, water infiltration, and biolog-
ical activity in the soil. Because the soil has
vegetative cover all year, wildlife, such as
game birds and mammals, also might
benefit.
Perennial grain research
Perennial grain research has been con-
ducted at the Rodale Research Center in
Pennsylvania since 1983. During the first
several years, nearly 100 species of peren-
Peggy Wagoner is senior project leader for peren-
nial grain research, Rodale Research Center, Kutz-
town, Pennsylvania 19530.
PERENNIAL
GRAIN
New use for
intermediate
wheatgrass
By Peggy Wagoner
nial grasses were tested for their potential
as grain crops. Selection of the most prom-
ising species was based on these criteria:
^ Vigorous perennial growth.
>• Seeds with favorable flavor qualities.
>• Easily threshed seeds.
^•Manageable seed size (>0.2g/100
seeds).
>• Synchronous seed maturity.
>• Shatter resistance.
>• Strong, nonlodging seed stalks.
>• Seed heads held above foliage level.
>• Dry-down of seed stalks at maturity.
>• High potential for mechanical harvest.
Based on these criteria, intermediate
wheatgrass, Thinopyrum (Agropyrori) inter-
medium, was selected for its potential as a
perennial grain crop. In the United States,
this perennial relative of wheat is normally
grown as forage and for erosion control in
the Great Plains and intermountain West.
Compared with other perennial grasses we
tested, intermediate wheatgrass ranks high
according to all of the selection criteria. It
produces seeds that average 0.53 grams per
100 seeds (5); the seeds can be mechanically
harvested and threshed using commercial-
ly available equipment; nutritionally, inter-
mediate wheatgrass is similar to wheat, with
slightly higher protein levels (1); the grain
can be ground into flour for use in baked
products; and it can be cooked as a whole
grain, like rice.
At this stage in our research, we are fo-
cusing on two major areas of investigation:
the evaluation of intermediate wheatgrass
germplasm and development of cultural
practices to produce intermediate wheat-
grass grain.
Germplasm evaluation
Intermediate wheatgrass is a,cool-season,
rhizomatous grass native to the southern So-
viet Union, central Asia, and eastern Med-
iterranean regions. To determine genetic var-
iation within the species and to select the
most promising types possible, we are evalu-
ating germplasm samples from these areas
of origin, as well as forage varieties devel-
oped in the United States.
Half of the Rodale Research Center's 250
accessions of intermediate wheatgrass were
obtained from the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture's Plant Introduction Office in Pull-
man, Washington. As indicated by the of-
fice's passport information, these accessions
were originally collected in the Soviet
Union, Iran, Turkey, and other areas of the
eastern Mediterranean region.
Additional samples have been received
from germplasm banks outside the United
States, including Plant Gene Resources of
Canada in Ottawa, Ontario; the N.I. Vavilov
Institute of Plant Industry in Leningrad; and
the Institute of Crop Germplasm Resources,
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science,
in Beijing. Nonselected germplasm as well
as breeding lines have been obtained from
U.S. and French researchers. Commercial-
ly available varieties of intermediate
wheatgrass have been obtained from seed
, companies in the United States.
Evaluation of this germplasm began in
1988 (4). Characteristics being studied in-
clude seed yield and general growth habits.
Each germplasm sample will be evaluated
for these characteristics for at least four to
six years to identify lines with the greatest
potential for consistently high yields and fa-
vorable adaptability over a number of years.
Based on information collected in 1988,
growth characteristics, such as plant height,
date of maturity, and general vigor, did not
vary greatly among accessions. Minor dif-
ferences in disease susceptibility of the seed
heads were noted, but there was much great-
er variability among seed yield character-
istics. Large variations in seed weight, seed
head fertility ratings, and percent thresh-
ability were found (4). These yield data were
important for characterizing differences
among accessions that otherwise look simi-
lar when growing in the field.
Of the 22 samples exhibiting highly fa-
vorable characteristics, 19 originated in the
Soviet Union. The other three were U.S.
January-February 1990 81
-------
selections. This indicates that the Soviet
germplasm tends to be better adapted to our
area than accessions from other locations
(7). Efforts will be made to acquire more
accessions of intermediate wheatgrass orig-
inating in the Soviet Union.
All accessions will be maintained in the
research center's herbary for an another
three to five years to further identify general
growth characteristics and to determine if
yield components change over time. Selec-
tion of germplasm to be used for breeding
higher yielding, well-adapted varieties of in-
termediate wheatgrass grain will be possi-
ble only after a large number of accessions
have been evaluated for a number of years.
The initial evaluation serves as a basis for
future selection and cross-breeding of higher
yielding, well-adapted lines for perennial
grain production. Ultimate selection of prom-
ising lines will be based on agronomic char-
acteristics and the grain's nutritional and
food quality characteristics.
Development of cultural practices
Methods to produce intermediate wheat-
grass grain must be developed to realize the
potential of this perennial grain crop. Meth-
ods for large-scale production of seeds from
intermediate wheatgrass forage varieties al-
ready have been developed by the seed
industry in the western United States. For
example, in Colorado and North Dakota,
where several varieties of intermediate
wheatgrass are grown commercially, seed
production fields have been maintained for
5 to 25 years, and seed yields range from
50 to 400 pounds per acre per year (6).
Inputs for long-term production include
nitrogen fertilizer, irrigation, herbicides,
and, sometimes, cultivation between peren-
nial grain rows. Information developed by
perennial grass seed producers should be
adapted to the production of perennial
grains. It is important to develop environ-
mentally sound and economically viable
perennial grain production methods.
In 1984, we began testing methods of pro-
ducing intermediate wheatgrass grain at the
Rodale Research Center (S). We are inter-
ested primarily in developing techniques that
maximize grain yields; maintain favorable
soil fertility levels; and control weed, insect,
and disease problems without the use of ag-
ricultural chemicals.
Plots of intermediate wheatgrass have
been successfully established using a John
Deere grain drill. Perennial legumes, such
as white clover (Trifolium repens), have been
established along with the wheatgrass to
provide biologically fixed nitrogen in an ef-
fort to maintain the fertility of the system.
Management techniques that have been test-
ed in an effort to maintain the health and
vigor of these wheatgrass stands for sus-
tained seed production include:
>• Thatch control by mowing, burning,
and grazing.
>• Fertility maintenance through the use
of legume companion crops and manure.
>• Weed control by mowing and rotary
hoeing.
Soil and leaf tissue sampling began in
1986 to determine the flow of nutrients, par-
ticularly nitrogen, through the system and
to determine how management techniques
influence these nutrient levels. The use of
manure and/or the presence of a legume
companion, such as white clover or birds-
foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), increases
the amount of nitrogen in leaf tissues.
Each August a small-grain combine is
used to harvest grain from experimental
plots. In addition, hand-harvested seed yield
samples are taken prior to the mechanical
harvest to determine yield potential of each
plot. In 1988,21 plots were harvested. Hand-
harvested yields ranged from 36 to 371
pounds per acre of naked grain. Mechanical-
ly harvested yields ranged from 22 to 198
pounds per acre of naked grain, indicating
that a substantial amount of seed is lost dur-
ing mechanical harvesting. Newer equip-
ment that can be better adjusted may reduce
losses.
Grain yields in the past four years have
ranged from 19 to 504 pounds per acre for
hand-harvested samples and 8 to 279 pounds
per acre for mechanically harvested samples
(8). Although some of these seed yield re-
sults are lower than those obtained by seed
producers in the western United States, our
inputs are lower. We are not using any irri-
gation or herbicides, and our fertility is pri-
marily from nitrogen-fixing legumes. Al-
though yields are low compared to yields of
annual grains such as wheat, it should be
possible to develop economically viable per-
ennial grain production methods. Reduced
costs of inputs will make net profits possi-
ble at lower yield levels. In addition, peren-
nial grains are being developed to grow on
marginal land that cannot support annual
crops.
A preliminary economic analysis of pe-
rennial grain production from intermediate
wheatgrass was conducted by David Watt of
North Dakota State University (9). Watt
concluded that if yields of intermediate
wheatgrass grain could be maintained at 500
pounds per acre for at least eight years, the
break-even cost of the grain would be at or
below six cents per pound. At this price, in-
termediate wheatgrass grain could penetrate
existing markets. Such preliminary data pro-
vide direction for further research. Of
course, all of this must be considered in the
context of using and marketing this new
grain crop.
Much more research is required to devel-
op low-input techniques to sustain perennial
grain productivity. Part of the answer lies
in the development of appropriate manage-
ment techniques. Another important consid-
eration is the selection and development of
productive, well-adapted germplasm.
The future
Development of perennial grain crops is
a long-term prospect. It will require com-
mitment and research from individuals in-
volved in plant breeding, agronomy, grain
utilization, and marketing. Interest in devel-
oping perennial grains is increasing. Mem-
bers of the Food Quality Research Section
of USDA's Western Regional Research Cen-
ter are contributing to our knowledge of in-
termediate wheatgrass as a food grain. The
staff of Carrington Research Extension Cen-
ter in Carrington, North Dakota, has initi-
ated agronomic and economic research on
the use of intermediate wheatgrass grain.
Evaluations of intermediate wheatgrass germ-
plasm are being conducted by such research-
ers as Jurgen Schultz-Schaeffer of Montana
State University and John Berdahl of the
Northern Great Plains Research Center in
Mandan, North Dakota.
Perennial grain cropping systems repre-
sent a whole new approach to grain produc-
tion based on perennial rather than annual
herbaceous plants. The benefits of this ef-
fort to the environment as well as to farmers
are potentially great.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Becker, Robert, Grace Hanners, De Irving, and
Robert Saunders. 1986. Chemical composition and
nutritional qualities of five potential perennial
grains. Food Sci. Tech. 19: 312-315.
2. Colacicco, Daniel, Tim Osborn, and Klaus Alt.
1989. Economic damage from soil erosion. J. Soil
and Water Cons. 44(1): 35-39.
3. Jackson, Wes. 1980. New roots for agriculture.
Friends of the Earth, San Francisco, Calif.
4. Schauer, Anne. 1989. Evaluations of intermediate
wheatgrass germplasm—1988 summary.
RRC/NC-8934. Rodale Press, Inc., Emmaus, Pa.
5. Schultz-Schaeffer, Jurgen, and Susan Haller. 1987.
Registration of "Montana-2"perennial Agrotrit-
icum intermedium Khidmyak. Crop Sci. 27:
822-823.
6. Soil Conservation Service. 1985. Annual technical
report—1985. Bismarck plant materials center,
part I. Bismarck, N. Dak.
7. Wagoner, Peggy. 1989. The study of intermediate
wheatgrass as a perennial grain crop—1988 re-
search summary. RRC/NC-98/33. Rodale Press,
Inc., Emmaus, Pa.
8. Wagoner, Peggy, and Anne Schauer. 1989. Inter-
mediate wheatgrass grain production trials at the
Rodale Research Center, 1988: Summary.
RRC/NC-89/32. Rodale Press, Inc., Emmaus, Pa.
9. Watt, David. 1989. Economic feasibility of'a per-
ennial grain: Intermediate wheatgrass. In Grass
or Grain? Intermediate Wheatgrass in a Peren-
nial , Grain Cropping System for the Northern
Great Plains. Res. Rpt. No. 108. North Dakota
State Univ./Rodale Res. Cent., Fargo, N.
Dak./Emmaus, Pa. D
82 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
The Michigan Energy
Conservation Program is
helping farmers and forest
producers conserve energy
and natural resources
By Carey L. Draeger
Soil Conservation Service/Ken Meyer
Sustainable agriculture at work
SUSTAINABLE agriculture encom-
passes any forming system that mini-
mizes inputs of nonrenewable re-
sources. Its goal is long-term agricultural sus-
tainability and profitability for the farmer.
The Michigan Energy Conservation Program
(MECP) is based on this definition as well.
MECP is designed to help farmers and
forest producers conserve energy and pro-
tect the soil, groundwater and surface water,
and other natural resources from unnec-
essary exposure and/or destruction due to
agrichemicals. In MECP's second year,
most participants realize the program's in-
tense compatibility with sustainable agricul-
ture: less reliance on energy-intensive prac-
tices, reduced use of pesticides and herbi-
cides, increased education and knowledge
of conservation methods for farmers, and
most importantly, economic and environ-
mental benefits for farmers.
MECP targeted six program areas for
energy reduction: integrated pest manage-
ment, fertilizer management, reduced tillage
Carey L. Draeger is the communications repre-
sentative for the Michigan Energy Conservation
Program, Michigan Department of Agriculture, P.O.
Box 30017, Lansing, 48909.
practices, irrigation scheduling and manage-
ment, livestock management, and forestry
management. In each area, participating
agencies assist farmers in reducing energy
inputs on their farms.
Some background
MECP began nearly two years ago when
Michigan's Legislature appropriated $16.5
million from two federal court settlements
involving oil overcharges during the petro-
leum price controls of the 1970s. It began
as a 30-month cooperative effort of five ma-
jor agriculturally related agencies: the Mich-
igan Department of Agriculture (MDA),
local soil and water conservation districts,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil
Conservation Service (SCS), and the Mich-
igan State University (MSU) Cooperative
Extension Service and Agriculture Experi-
ment Station. MECP's effectiveness relies
on the shared participation of these organiza-
tions at both the county and state levels.
Originally scheduled to end in September
1990, an additional $800,000 was added to
the program's budget to continue it through
December 1990.
To take full advantage of the strength of
the cooperating agencies, a board of direc-
tors was created to encourage input and
guidance by the directors of all participating
agencies. Board members include MDA
Director Robert Mitchell, SCS State Con-
servationist Homer Hilner, Michigan Asso-
ciation of Conservation Districts' President
Josh Wunsch, MSU Cooperative Extension
Interim Director Ray Gillespie, and MSU
Agriculture Experiment Station Director
Robert Gast.
Meeting on a quarterly basis, the board
sets overall policy and direction for the pro-
gram. For example, the board determined
how direct grant funds would be allocated
to districts and producer participants. The
board also worked together to develop a con-
sortium proposal for continued MECP fund-
ing to present to the Michigan legislature.
The MDA is the lead agency within
MECP's structure. It oversees all funding to
other participating agencies, maintains four
regional assistant program coordinators who
work with energy technicians and districts
at the local level, employs a communications
representative for public relations purposes,
and reports to the U.S. Department of
January-February 1990 83
-------
Energy on use of MECP monies and
achievements.
Each of Michigan's 83 soil and water
conservation districts has at least one MECP
energy technician, with a total of 89 tech-
nicians statewide. These individuals play a
major role in the program by working di-
rectly with farmers and forest product pro-
ducers to implement energy-saving prac-
tices. MSU's Agriculture Experiment Sta-
tion creates and maintains demonstration
plots to ensure effective energy-saving prac-
tices for the program. The Cooperative Ex-
tension Service provides informational/edu-
cational materials, conducts demonstrations
and training sessions, and provides expert
learns and district energy agents to assist in
the transfer of information to technicians and
MECP participants. SCS assists energy
technicians in various technical areas
associated with MECP and, in most cases,
serves in a supervisory capacity for imple-
mentation of technical practices to the tech-
nicians at the district level.
MECP programs and practices
MECP has assisted more than 20,000
Michigan farmers and forest product pro-
ducers in its 18-month existence. Through
its energy-saving practices, more than $21.9
million in energy and agrichemicals have
been saved. For every MECP dollar in-
vested, more than two dollars in energy have
been saved. For example, an Eaton County
MECP-sponsored fertility program reduced
input costs for 121 farmers by more than
$130,000 last year. Taking advantage of phos-
phorus buildup in the soil from years of
overapplication accounted for a majority of
the savings. Other soil and water conser-
vation districts used MECP funding to pro-
vide farmers with free soil tests to determine
their nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium
needs. Seventy MECP technicians statewide
reduced fertilizer inputs by more than 6,200
tons. Farmers have saved a total of
$3,100,000 in unused fertilizer to date.
The intensive rotational grazing method
fits in well with both MECP and sustainable
agriculture. Directly related to fertilizer
management, the system promotes input re-
duction and regrowth of idle land. Pastures
arc divided into small paddocks with
movable fences; animals are moved on a
one- to three-day schedule to provide rest
periods for individual pastures. Dairy herds
are moved every 12 to 24 hours, while beef
and sheep may spend two to three days in
each paddock. Labor and energy are saved
as a result of having animals harvest their
own food rather than cutting, raking, baling,
moving, and storing baled forage.
More than 200 producers sought assis-
tance 'from MECP's irrigation scheduling
program last year to maintain yields while
keeping irrigation costs in check. According
to Ed Martin, MECP irrigation specialist,
the irrigation scheduling program, offered
by 15 soil and water conservation districts,
provides growers with a weekly, tabulated
balance of stored water in the soil profile.
A computer program calculates daily soil
water losses due to evapotranspiration and
crop use at various growth stages and debits
this from the amount of moisture available.
The amount of water added to the soil from
irrigation and rainfall is credited to the
balance. This program allows growers to
apply additional moisture at optimum times,
making better use of the water applied. By
following irrigation scheduling, growers
never overfill the soil profile. This allows
the soil to absorb typical summer rains
without leaching agrichemicals to ground-
water or having them run off to surface water
sources.
MECP's integrated pest management
(IPM) programs reduced pesticide applica-
tions by an estimated 1,500 tons last year.
John Hayden, IPM program coordinator,
says this system uses a variety of manage-
ment strategies to keep pests below an eco-
nomic threshold—the population at which
the damage exceeds the cost of application.
By using information from environmental
monitoring and regular pest scouting, farm-
ers can reduce pesticide expenses and ap-
plications, thus reducing production costs
and maintaining profitable crop yields.
Groundwater quality and MECP
Another important aspect of both sus-
tainable agriculture and MECP is the con-
cern over nitrate contamination in water.
MECP is operating a mobile nitrate test
clinic van to help farmers apply only enough
nitrogen to meet crop needs. Maurice
Vitosh, the MSU/MECP fertility manage-
ment leader, explains that farmers who test
for nitrate-nitrogen may find that they can
maintain yields and reduce nitrogen applica-
tions by taking advantage of nitrate-nitrogen
currently in the soil profile. Applying the
exact amount of nitrogen to meet crop yield
goals reduces the amount of nitrate-nitrogen
left in the soil after harvest that may leach
into groundwater sources. Over 2,000 acres
were tested by the mobile clinic, affecting
more than 500 farmers.
Cover crops are being used by MECP as
an excellent source of nitrogen for crops.
Technicians are recommending hairy vetch,
red clover, and other legumes for rotational
crops to increase nitrogen fixation and re-
duce soil erosion.
Vitosh feels formers are more willing to
adapt new practices if they have the oppor-
tunity to see on-farm demonstrations and
experience the resulting benefits of sustain-
able agriculture practices. On-farm testing
programs answer the farmer's need to see
and believe and offer evidence of increased
profitability with minimum input.
Conservation tillage ups profit
Many soil and water conservation districts
used MECP funds to purchase or lease 90
pieces of conservation tillage equipment for
farmers to use free of charge. In some cases,
acreage was limited to a specific number to
allow equipment use by all interested
farmers.
Conservation tillage prevents water and
wind erosion, reduces runoff, decreases
compaction, and increases retention of soil
moisture. Results of the conservation tillage
program include an increase in no-till corn
by 13 percent, soybeans by 40 percent, small
grains by 17 percent, and pasture and hay
by 31 percent.
"Conservation tillage may cause an in-
crease in use of some chemicals initially,"
says SCS's Hilner, "but this use is cut down
once weeds are under control." Conserva-
tion tillage prevents excessive soil and water
erosion and maintains good crop yields.
MECP farmers apply concepts
Dick Ekins comes from a conventional
farming background. "My grandfather used
to moldboard plow his fields, then use
several different harrows to prepare the soil
for planting," he says. "By the time he was
done, the soil was so fine that much was lost
to wind and water erosion." Ekins himself
changed to minimum tillage practices on his
160-acre farm several years ago. He likes the
idea of crop residue protecting his land from
erosion and moisture loss. "I do the least
amount of tillage I can and I still get good
crops!" In 1986, his corn won the Jackson
County No-Till Yield Contest with a
149-bushel per acre figure.
Ekins is an enthusiastic MECP partici-
pant. He feels the program came at just the
right time: It helped him implement several
practices involving IPM, animal waste man-
agement, and cover crops and increased his
profits as well. For example, Ekins' use of
herbicides on his corn crop has been re-
duced 30 to 40 percent with IPM practices.
Instead of scheduled sprayings, Ekins re-
duces weed problems mechanically, culti-
vating once or twice a season. He also uses
scouting practices and is more careful about
actual herbicide applications, using a 12- to
14-inch band application. His choice of her-
bicides has become more selective, and he
84 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
stays away from restricted-use chemicals as
much as possible.
Bob and JoAnn Fogg have been practic-
ing sustainable agriculture on their 335-acre
farm for several years. Ten years ago, the
Foggs began questioning conventional farm-
ing practices and decided to make their farm
more environmentally sound. They began on
one field with reduced amounts of agri-
chemicals, studied the results, and gradually
increased their acreage farmed in this fash-
ion. Their fields are now insecticide- and
herbicide-free.
"I don't have so much against commer-
cial fertilizers per se," says Bob Fogg, "but
I think we could greatly reduce the amount
we use, try to use less-damaging types of
fertilizers, and still make a profitable living
from sustainable agriculture practices."
Over the last 9 or 10 years, the Foggs have
gone from an outside-input system, which
relies on nonrenewable resources, to a more
sustainable system that relies on farm-pro-
duced resources with less risk of environ-
mental damage. They follow a specific crop-
ping program to maintain their soil's fertili-
ty: cover crops, green manure applications,
and leaving a crop on a specific area. They
raise a variety of crops to maintain their sus-
tainable agriculture practices: corn, wheat,
alfalfa, oats, hay, and other commodities.
They also recently planted an acre-and-a-
half of certified organic vegetables with the
hope of achieving a farmer-to-consumer net-
work for food purchases.
"It takes self-education and an open mind
to change a person's attitude about sus-
tainable agriculture," Fogg says. "It's not
easy, but it works if you use good manage-
ment practices. You've got to maintain the
health of your soil and your crops."
MECP has been useful to the Foggs' farm-
ing practices. The program encouraged Bob
to try no-chemical, no-till farming for corn
and soybeans. Instead of chemical applica-
tion, Fogg used a hairy vetch/rye seed mix-
ture to combat weed pressure, killing the
cover off by mechanical means. Fogg also
tried intensive grazing with his cattle, using
one-acre paddocks with a portable fence.
The locations were changed every two days.
One major benefit of the grazing program
was encouraging vegetation on a formerly
bare hill, reducing soil erosion in that spot.
MECP and cooperating agencies
Maintaining and preserving natural re-
sources is a responsibility best shared by a
number of agencies. MECP has demon-
strated how quickly success can be achieved
if it is shared through its multiagency char-
acteristic. Each of the four participating
agencies specializes in a particular area and
shares this expertise with the other three.
"Sustainable agriculture is not a new con-
cept," says MSU's Gillespie. "Our agency
has been recommending sustainable agricul-
tural practices for years. The majority of our
staff encourages good stewardship, and that's
what sustainable agriculture and MECP are
all about."
Sandra Yonker, MDA assistant deputy
director agrees: "It's the wave of the future
and it provides advantages to all sectors of
the agricultural community. MECP has
helped to form a coalition of agencies dedi-
cated to working with farmers and other ag-
ribusinesses to achieve sustainable practices
on a practical, profitable basis."
Yonker feels with MECP up and oper-
ating, more personnel are in the field where
it counts the most to make sustainable agri-
culture a viable reality for fanners. An ad-
visory committee on sustainable agriculture
made up of state agency personnel, farmers,
and other agricultural professionals has been
created to continue promotion and educa-
tion of sustainable agriculture. MECP pro-
vides a model to encourage increased adop-
tion of sustainable agriculture practices by
Michigan's farmers and forest product
producers.
"MECP simply puts another column of
soldiers out to help protect the environ-
ment," adds SCS's Hilner. "Our own finan-
cial resources were not enough for SCS to
do the whole job. MECP is helping us a
great deal to continue our practices of pre-
serving the environment."
"In its first year of operation, MECP has
proven to thousands of farmers that agri-
chemical inputs, such as pesticides and fer-
tilizers, can be reduced without a negative
impact on yields," says Ted Loudon, MSU/
MECP project leader. "By balancing inputs
Irrigation scheduling, computed for
specific fields, has limited the leaching
of agricultural chemicals in Michigan.
to meet crop or pest control needs, pro-
ducers reduce operation costs and decrease
the amount of chemicals they put into the
land."
Gordon Wenk, MDA project coordinator,
adds, "The management of natural resources
and farming practices for sustainability
revolves around three critical areas: en-
vironmental protection, farm profitability,
and social acceptance. In order for sus-
tainable agriculture to become a reality,
these three criteria must be met. We feel that
the Michigan Energy Conservation Program
does all of these things: it protects the
environment through reduced and wise use
of agrichemicals, it shows farmers how to
decrease energy consumption and increase
their profits, and farmers are enthusiastic
about participating." •
An ongoing success
The MECP is a successful multiagency
approach that conserves energy and in-
creases agriculture profitability while pro-
tecting the environment. It educates farmers
and other agribusiness participants about
natural resource conservation and offers
practical methods by which sustainable agri-
culture can be maintained. Through local
soil and water conservation districts, it of-
fers a one-on-one delivery system of tech-
nical assistance and education to farmers and
forest product producers, directed by local-
ly elected citizens. At the broader statewide
level, the MDA and MECP board of direc-
tors serve to enhance the local delivery of
technical assistance and to locate future
funding for the continuation of this most im-
portant program. Q
January-February 1990 85
-------
Commodity
programs and
sustainable
cash grain
farming
By Bruce E. Lyman, Richard A. Levins,
Michael A. Schmitt, and William F. Lazarus
REDWOOD County, in southwestern
Minnesota, is primarily a cash grain-
producing region. Corn is the pre-
dominant crop, with corn-soybeans the pre-
dominant rotation. Not surprisingly, the
sign-up for government commodity pro-
grams is very high in Redwood County. Pro-
gram payments have helped relieve the ec-
onomic difficulties that plagued farmers
throughout the 1980s. But looking to the
coming decade, many farmers and form
leaders sec economic issues making way for
environmental issues as a major influence
in agricultural decision-making.
Cash grain farmers in the area no doubt
will be encouraged to adopt more sus-
tainable farming practices. Two questions
arise quite naturally from this. The first is
simply, "What options do cash grain farmers
have for becoming more sustainable?" The
second concerns the incentives (or disincen-
tives) that current commodity programs pro-
vide farmers who wish to become more
sustainable.
After conducting a series of informal in-
terviews with farmers in the county, we
found that most cash grain farmers saw their
options as being relatively limited. Further-
more, there was a consensus that straying
from commodity program guidelines would
be financially unwise, to say the least. One
farmer talked of the "vise grip" in which
programs held his farm planning process.
A case study we analyzed of a typical cash
grain farm in the county supported what we
learned from the interviews with farmers.
If cash grain farmers are to adopt sustainable
practices, significant changes will be neces-
sary. Current commodity programs do not
Bruce £ Lyman is an extension associate, Depart-
ment tfAgriailtiaitl Economics and Rural Sociology,
Unlvenlty of Idalw, Moscow 83843. Richard A.
Levins is an associate professor and William F.
Layirus is an assistant professor, Department of
Agricultural and Applied Economics, and Michael
A, Schmitt is an assistant professor, Department of
Soil Science, University of Minnesota, St. Paul,
55108.
provide any incentives to adopt the sus-
tainable practices we identified, and more
than that, they penalize those who try them.
Case farm description
The county extension agent described the
farmer we chose to work with as typical of
most cash grain fanners in the area. The
farm was a single-family operation with 445
total crop acres. Corn, soybeans, and spring
wheat were the principal crops.
The farm was in relatively sound finan-
cial condition. Two areas of concern were
noted, however. One was that the bad times
of the past decade had left little in the way
of reserves for purchasing new equipment.
The second was that the farmer's participa-
tion in corn and wheat programs was large-
ly responsible for any profits shown. With-
out the program income, each dollar of farm
output required $1.12 in farm expenses.
A detailed study of the cropping practices
and soils on the farm led to three areas of
concern that might motivate a move to more
sustainable farming: (a) the timing and
amounts of nitrogen being applied, (b) ero-
sion control, and (c) the potential for
leaching and surface runoff losses of
herbicides.
Sustainable alternatives
We evaluated many alternative practices,
such as applying nitrogen in the spring
rather than fell and reducing chemical rates.
The most sustainable alternatives, however,
were ones that included a forage legume in
the rotation system.
Alfalfa is the legume of choice in most of
Minnesota. Alfalfa in the rotation system
would address all three of the environmental
concerns we identified for the farm.
Nitrogen fertilizer requirements would be
reduced, fewer herbicides would be applied,
and soil erosion potential would decrease.
We used a system in which alfalfa and oats
were seeded together in the first year to
reduce revenue losses during the establish-
ment year.
One problem with producing alfalfa on
this farm was that the farmer had no hay
equipment and was not in a financial posi-
tion to purchase any. We therefore budgeted
the alfalfa harvest operation with custom
charges rather than with equipment owner-
ship and operating costs. The farmer also
raised concerns about the market for hay.
Although a few farmers can easily shift to
hay without affecting the market, large
numbers of farmers cannot. The macro-
economic effects of changing the grain/
forage balance of our agricultural produc-
tion system might well become a new con-
cern for policymakers.
Six crop rotations
We evaluated six different crop rotations
with respect to their profitability with and
without the government commodity pro-
grams and their total nitrogen fertilizer her-
bicide requirements.
The first rotation is a baseline scenario
with no major changes from the way the
farm is currently being operated. Produc-
tion is within the guidelines of the 1989 farm
programs for wheat and feed grains, and the
soybean substitution option is exercised at
its 25 percent maximum. There is no reduc-
tion in crop base acreage for wheat or corn.
The second and third rotations reduce or
eliminate base acreages and corresponding
program payments. In the second scenario
the available cropland is divided evenly
among corn, first-year alfalfa, and second-
year alfalfa. The wheat base is lost alto-
gether, the corn base is reduced, and the
relatively profitable soybean crop is no
longer grown. The third scenario preserves
wheat and divides the cropland evenly in a
corn-soybean-wheat-alfalfa-alfalfa rotation.
This system provides the environmental ben-
efits and lower financial risk of growing a
SB Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
diverse crop mixture. It comes at a cost of
losing the wheat base (acreage is exceeded),
reducing the corn base, and growing fewer
soybeans.
The last three rotations represent various
ways the farmer could adopt more sustain-
able practices while staying within govern-
ment program guidelines. All three attempt
to follow a corn-soybean-wheat-alfalfa-alfal-
fa rotation without reducing the corn and/or
wheat base. We will not describe each fully
here because each turned out to be so opera-
tionally complex to implement that the form-
er was in no way inclined to consider them.
Planting would have to be done at levels of
a few acres per crop in many cases, rather
than the field-by-field strategies now in use.
For example, scenario 6 would require corn
to be grown after four different crops each
year in acreages ranging from 2.5 to 66.3
acres. We show the results of these rotations
only as a way of examining the wisdom of
Total
Ibs.
nitrogen applied per scenario.
of N(1000's)
2 3 4
Scenario
•• Total N
Total pounds (active ingredients)
of herbicide applied.
Ibs. Herbicide Applied
2 3; 4
Scenario
I Total Ibs. Herbicide
Impact of government programs,
returns with and
without government payments.
Net Returns (1000's)
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$ 5
$ 0
Illlll
12 3 4 5
Scenario
•i With Gov't. Payments
dl Without Gov't Payments
Rotation scenarios evaluated, nitrogen saved, and
Rotation •• /-••'. ':']•:: •- -.-.' ,'"- •'.''-, '..'. . •"' ',/v:.\ ;"'..'; '••
Scenario Description
1 "Baseline System
2-3-way rotation
3-5-way rotation
4-In program
5-ln program
6-!n program
Corn-soybean rotation with some wheat
.•' grown . ;• ;' ".-' • • : •'•''. : •"•••-. /'•'
Gorn-alfalfa-alfalfa • : ; ;
Gorii-soybean-wheat-alf alfa-alfalf a
Half of wheat acres followed by alfalfa
All wheat acres followed by alfalfa
Maximum alfalfa within program
guidelines : .•'.-. \ ; ;
revenue lost
Nitrogen
Savings Revenue
(pounds) Loss ($)
'•'•- •-•-o.';;
12,000
10,660
1,539
3,078
6,5ia
0
2,361
7,144
645 ,•',
f,480
3,327
trying to satisfy environmental goals and
commodity programs simultaneously.
Results of analysis
The results of our analyses of the options
available to this farmer are shown in the
graphs, which depict total nitrogen fertilizer
use and herbicide use and net returns with
and without government programs.
Nitrogen fertilizer use was by far the
highest with the baseline option, which was
also the only practical way we identified to
stay with program guidelines. If judged
practical by the farmer, the base-preserving
scenarios of the last three options would
have significantly reduced total nitrogen fer-
tilizer requirements. But all of the base-
preserving options showed nitrogen fer-
tilizer requirements well above those of op-
tions 2 and 3, the two options that were
penalized because they reduced bases.
In Options 4, 5, and 2 require the fanner
must give up the least amount of revenue
to save a given amount of nitrogen below
the baseline option. Options 6 and 3 sacri-
fice more revenue to save less nitrogen.
A common problem among all of the
base-preserving options was that even when
legumes were introduced, their nitrogen-fix-
ing properties often were ignored as pro-
gram considerations dominated agronomic
considerations. For example, several sce-
narios forced the farmer to plant soybeans
after a soybean crop—a situation both agro-
nomically and environmentally unsound.
The herbicide use situation was similar
to that for nitrogen fertilizer. None of the
rotations eliminated the need for herbicides,
but the two with the lowest requirements
were also those that involved the biggest
loss of government program benefits.
Net revenue resulting from reduced base
acreages in the second and third rotations,
compared to the baseline scenario, showed
that adopting option 2 carried a $2,361
penalty and adopting option 3 carried a
$7,144 penalty. The farm's financial pic-
ture would look much worse under either
of the two best environmental scenarios.
Is the solution simply to eliminate govern-
ment payments and make a "level playing
field" for all? All of the options show re-
duced income if the current commodity pro-
grams are simply eliminated. No options we
investigated would be economically sus-
tainable at current farm costs and prices.
Conclusions
The farmer we worked with in Redwood
County faces a dilemma common to many
farmers in southwestern Minnesota. On the
one hand, he is being encouraged to adopt
more sustainable farming practices. On the
other, government commodity programs
discourage him from doing so.
What would help this farmer? One strate-
gy would be to work to adopt more sustain-
able practices while staying within com-
modity program guidelines. But our work
suggests that doing so results in cropping
schemes that are unpractically complex.
Further, none of these schemes approach-
es the environmental benefits of those ro-
tations that depart from program guidelines.
The best strategies are those that would
result from more flexible base acreages. The
vise grip of program guidelines must be re-
laxed; this much seems clear. But to sim-
ply remove all guidelines and payments is
not practical. None of the options we inves-
tigated looked economically appealing when
all payments were removed.
At the same time, incentives to produce
in ways that are environmentally undesir-
able should be examined carefully. For ex-
ample, the reward for pursuing option 1 in-
stead of option 2 or 3 is much higher with
the program than without. In place of such
incentives, policies that encourage and sup-
port forages seem to make good sense for
our case farmer.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Lyman, Bruce E. 1989. Sustainable farming: An
evaluation of selected options for a cash grain
farm in southwest Minnesota. M.S. thesis. Dept.
Agr. and Applied Econ., Univ. Minn., St. Paul.
124 pp. D
January-February 1990 87
-------
Journal of Soil & Water
^^ journal or doii&waier • •
Conservation
Three information resources you
can't afford to be without!
* Building on the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act
+ The Promise of Low-Input Agriculture: A Search for Sustainability and Profitability
+ Rural Groundwater Quality Management: Emerging Issues and Public Policies
Soil erosion control and wetland protection,
sustainable agriculture, and groundwater quality
management are issues high on the national policy
agenda. What policy options are there for dealing
with these issues? Does the know-how exist and are
there resources available to put effective programs
in place for meeting the resource protection needs
involved? Are programs now in place proving out?
These and related questions are dealt with, or will
be dealt with soon, in three special issues of the
authoritative Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.
These valuable resources can be obtained now from
the Soil and Water Conservation Society.
4- The September-October 1989 issue of the JSWC,
"Building on the Conservation Title of the Food
Security Act," is now available. It's 192 pages chock
full of details on experience with the four major
provisions of the Conservation Title of the 1985
farm bill—conservation reserve, sodbuster,
conservation compliance, and swampbuster~and
what the implications of this experience are for the
1990 farm bill now being debated.
+ The January-February 1990 issue of the JSWC, "The
Promise of Low-Input Agriculture," features a series
of informative essays and reports of research~160
pages worth-on what sustainable agriculture is and
what it encompasses in the way of production
techniques for improved natural resource protection
and improved farm profitability.
4 To be published yet this spring, the March-April
1990 issue of the JSWC will be devoted to rural
groundwater quality management—nearly 200 pages of
the latest facts and thinking about the extent of
agriculture's impact on groundwater resources and
what can be done from the standpoint of policy and
on-the-ground programs to deal effectively with what
may be the most pressing of natural resource issues.
You can order any one or all of these information
resources now. Single copies of any one of the
issues are just $12, postpaid. And there are sizeable
discounts for quantity purchases~$10 each for 10 or
more copies, plus postage, and $8 each for 100 or
more copies, plus postage.
Please send me the following at $12 per copy ($10/copy for 10 or more copies of each issue; $8/copy for 100 or more copies of each):
—— copies of "Building on the Conservation Title..."
copies of "Promise of Low-Input Agriculture"
copies of "Rural Groundwater Quality Management" (orders will filled in late-May)
Name __^_
Address
Oty
State
Zipcode
Q Check Charge my D VISA D MasterCard D Diner's Club
enclosed
Card No. Exp. Date_
O Bill me
Signature
SOIL
AND WATER
CONSERVATION
SOCIETY
Soil and Water Conservation Society
7515 Northeast Ankeny Road
Ankeny, Iowa 50021-9764
(SIS) 289-2331
or toll-free 1-800-THE SOIL
-------
The
Soil and Water
Conservation
Society
Join SWCS
for ONLY $30
Membership in SWCS will
benefit you educationally and give
you new opportunities to advance
the science and art of good land
and water use worldwide
• An interdisciplinary approach...
to solving land and water resource
problems is emphasized throughout
SWCS programs. You will interact
with people in different, but allied,
land and water conservation fields.
• The Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation...
is one of the most respected journals
in the field of land and water
management, and has been for over
40 years. The JSWC will bring you
the latest in land and water
conservation and place you in the
forefront of innovative technology
and thinking.
• Annual meetings...
will give you the opportunity to
exchange views with colleagues
from around the world and the
chance to see and hear about
conservation in other areas.
• Special conferences...
on timely topics will give you
additional opportunities to contribute
to the solution of conservation
problems and to learn about
conservation advances first-hand.
• Multidisciplinary work groups...
give you more opportunities to
share your knowledge and experience
about current, critical issues and
problems and to influence
conservation policies and programs.
You'll learn more in the process, too.
• Chapter programs-
help you influence and learn more
about conservation locally. SWCS
has 100 chapters throughout the
United States and Canada, plus 40
chapters on college campuses.
• The "Conservogram"...
reports news of Society activities,
members, and chapters, bimonthly.
• Books...
on a variety of topics will be
available to you at discount prices.
• Group insurance...
life insurance will be available to
you at low group rates.
Join Now!
How? Please see reverse
SO1L5
AND WATER
CONSERVATION
'OCIETY
Membership Application
CH Ifes, I want to join SWCS. My membership is for one year beginning
on the first of the month in which my membership payment is received.
Please print or type Questions? Call (515) 289-2331
Name _
Address
City
.State/Province
. Zip Code
Firm/agency/college _
Job title
. County.
Telephone (O).
D Regular membership $4
SOCIETY
Name
Address
City
jj Express Order Form
^J Use this handy postpaid card to order any of the SWCS items advertised
j^»« in this issue of the JSWC or to request more information about SWCS and
/AT1ON its programs. Indicate book title, describe item, or check the appropriate
box below.
Item Quantity Price Other Information
D Membership campaign
D Publication catalog
n JKWC. pr)itr>ri>] rjindolinfx;
D Endowment support
Total $ n FrlHoation^l materials
Tplpphone
Statp/Prnuinro 7ir> <"V.Ho
D Bill me D MasterCard D VISA Card No.
D Check enclosed c „ _.
Exp. Date Signature
Payable
in U.S. funds or by bank draft in U.S. dollars drawn on a U.S. bank.
-------
NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY
IF MAILED
IN THE
UNITED STATES
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST CLASS PERMIT No. 10 ANKENY, IOWA
POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE
Attention; Membership Department
Soil and Water Conservation
Society
7515 Northeast Ankeny Road
Ankeny, Iowa 50021
NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY
IF MAILED
IN THE
UNITED STATES
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST CLASS PERMIT No. 10 ANKENY, IOWA
POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE
Attention: Membership Department
Soil and Water Conservation
Society
7515 Northeast Ankeny Road
Ankeny, Iowa 50021
NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY
IF MAILED
IN THE
UNITED STATES
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST CLASS PERMIT No. 10 ANKENY, IOWA
POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE
Attention: Outer* Department
Soil and Water Conservation
Society
7515 Northeast Ankeny Road
Ankeny, Iowa 50021
The
Soil and Water
Conservation
Society
How?
To join SWCS's 13,000
members in advancing the
science and art of good
land and water use
worldwide, complete and
send an application card,
today. If all the cards have
been used, write or call for
an application: SWCS,
7515 N.E. Ankeny Road,
Ankeny, IA 50021-9764;
(515) 289-2331.
Membership
Your membership benefits (see
other side of tab) will begin on
the first of the month in which
SWCS receives your
application and payment. If you
join now, you can receive your
first year of membership for
ONLY $30 ($36, outside the
U.S. and Canada)—if "you've
never been a member before.
Student membership
Get the jump on fellow students
who are not members and
receive the many advantages of
SWCS membership—
advantages that will pay off
now and in the future. If you
join now, you can receive your
first year of membership for
ONLY $12.50 ($18 outside the
U.S. and Canada), you will
receive all the rights,
privileges, and benefits of
professional members. We'll
value your membership, you'll
value from it.
Join us,
today!
SOIL
AND WATER
CONSERVATION
SOCIETY
-------
Leadership is not forcing other people
to do what you want to be done,
but empowering other people to accomplish
what they want to accomplish
Sustainable agriculture:
Who will lead?
By Fee Busby
SUSTAINABLE agriculture is a dialogue—a discussion
among people of many different backgrounds and in-
terests, a search for both questions and answers. The
result of the dialogue will be the development of a philosophy—a
philosophy that describes the paradigm shift that I think we are
experiencing.
Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus in Leaders, the Strategies for
Taking Change, describe a paradigm shift as a "major turning
point in history.. .where some new height of vision is sought,
where some new fundamental redefinitions are required, where
our table of values will have to be reviewed." Leadership in
low-input and related agricultural issues requires that everyone
contribute to this change by providing vision, redefinition, and
value review.
Many of us participated in the industrialization and chem-
icalization of U.S. agriculture. The same people are now leading
a new movement in agriculture—an agriculture that will use
off-farm, purchased inputs more efficiently and effectively,
minimize adverse impacts of the farming system on the environ-
ment and on the health of producers as well as consumers, and
enhance farm profitability while sustaining the natural resources
on which agriculture depends. A. T. Mosher, one of the leaders
of the agricultural revolution in Asia, observed in 1966 that
"agricultural development is as dependent on how effectively
people work together as it is on the natural resources." This
is just as true in the United States today.
The end of manifest destiny
I believe our current paradigm is an extension of this nation's
manifest destiny philosophy, which was expressed in 1845 by
Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. This philosophy
has been our rationalization for more than a century in believ-
ing such things as "man is dominant over nature," "big is bet-
ter," and "economic efficiency is the bottom line." It was this
philosophy that led to the mechanization and industrialization
of agriculture; the taming of animals, land, and water to facilitate
this industrialization; and the dependence on chemicals to
squeeze the next increment of production from agricultural fields
and pastures. It was this philosophy that led U.S. producers in
1972 to try and dominate world agricultural commodity markets
by plowing fence-row to fence-row.
For more than 100 years the wisdom of manifest destiny has
been questioned periodically. The establishment of Yellowstone
Fee Busby is director of U.S. Programs, Winrock International Institute for
Agricultural Development, Morrilton, Arkansas 72110. This article is based on
Busby's presentation at the conference "The Promise of Low-Input Agriculture:
A Search for Sustainability and Profitability."
National Park in 1872 and the national forest system in 1905
represented our nation's first answers to these questions. The
soil conservation movement, which began in earnest in the 1930s
in response to the Dust Bowl, was another answer. Since 1960,
there have been more answers, including statements about the
importance of multiple use of land and water, the need for wil-
derness preserves, and the necessity of evaluating human
impacts on the environment.
Legislative actions to these ends resulted from citizens ask-
ing government to modify the manifest destiny philosophy. John
Muir, Gifford Pinchot, Hugh Hammond Bennett, Aldo Leo-
pold, Rachael Carson, and others spoke loudly and clearly about
a better world. They laid the groundwork. The torch has passed.
Leadership requires that we carry the torch and keep it burning.
The paradigm shift includes a vision that nature is dominant.
The drought of 1988 taught us some very important lessons.
Many people are concerned that we cannot answer questions
absolutely about global warming and what effects such warm-
ing will have on the environment. Fortunately, the new paradigm
includes humankind being comfortable in not knowing or think-
ing that we know everything. The new paradigm should include
risk-management strategies, such as patience and unselfishness.
With less-than-perfect knowledge, we must be willing to take
our time. Humankind must live in harmony with nature, giv-
ing to nature as well as taking.
The new paradigm should lead to a recognition that small
is beautiful and that diversity can contribute to environmental,
economic, and cultural sustainability. The new paradigm should
emphasize the effectiveness as well as the efficiency of policies
and practices. One hundred years of policies and practices that
have helped agriculture feed this nation and much of the rest
of the world are judged efficient in most circles. However,
because of the stresses and strains that have and continue to
plague farmers, ranchers, rural areas, and the environment, it
also is hard to judge the policies and practices as effective.
If agencies are to lead, they must have clearly defined, shared
values that every single employee and client understands. The
shared value that must be set for agricultural enterprises is sus-
tainability. We must develop farming and ranching systems that
maintain and enhance, through a proper mix of inputs, our soil,
water, plant, and animal resources. This includes the cultural,
social, and economic systems we have created.
Megatrends
I am far from the first who has suggested a major paradigm
shift. John Naisbett, in his 1982 book Megatrends, described
10 changes occurring in our society. These changes and how
I believe they relate to sustainable agriculture and leadership
include the following:
^- From industrial society to information society. This change
is very true of sustainable agriculture because managing the
complexities of agricultural systems that use crop rotations,
animal manures, green manure crops, and integrated pest
January-February 1990 89
-------
control practices for positive results requires more thought and
information than does solving a problem with a plow or a
chemical.
>• From forced technology to high-tech, high-touch. This
docs not mean going backwards in time. Producers will not give
up modern fanning machines and chemicals. For instance, they
will rely more on computer technology because computers offer
the hope of dealing with the information that will be needed
to farm successfully in the future. But mankind cannot mental-
ly or emotionally survive when surrounded only by machines.
Man needs to be touched both literally and figuratively by other
living tilings—plants, animals, and other humans. Farmers need
to get off their tractors and feel and smell the soil, handle the
plants and animals, and be in harmony with nature. Consumers
want products that they believe have been grown in harmony
with nature.
>• From either/or to multiple options. During most of the
past 50 years, farm bills have included programs that tie farmers
to certain crops through base acreage or other commodity pro-
gram provisions. Farmers either followed the program or gave
up significant government support options. The need to con-
centrate on certain crops resulted in farmers adopting certain
production practices and management strategies. As more and
more farmers chose to follow the program, more fermers farmed
in the same way. The future will stress diversity on individual
farms as well as in geographical areas. Farmers will have multi-
ple options as to which crops to grow and how to grow them.
Again, fanners will need access to information, including
market information for numerous crops.
>• From national economy to \vorld economy. This transfer-
Come Up with Reliable Facts
in SOIL EXPLORATION
I A
Use the GIDDINGS
SOIL SAMPLER
with these 11 features
Saves Manpower with Its one-Man
Operation • Cores Fast—from 5 to
10 feet In 60 seconds • Drills
Deep—down to 35 feet In some
soils • Fully Hydraulic Powered—
only machine of Its size and type
with an hydraulic-powered rotary
head • One head takes auger and
probe tools • Undisturbed Soil
Samples with probe tools • Quick
Mount saves working time • 4-Way
Leveling Device • Hydraulic Pow-
ered Reclining Mount with In-
creased Ground Clearance • Sub-
stantial Savings In equipment costs
• Anchors and Stabilizer for Posi-
tive Action.
See the Trailer-mounted
Model GSRP-ST. Write forcatalog.
GIDDINGS MACHINE COMPANY
401 Ptne Street » P.O. Drawer 2024
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
mation is certainly true in agriculture where food and fiber prod-
ucts are routinely traded on world markets. Agricultural tech-
nology and knowledge also moves from country to country. We
are seeing a shift in the traditional direction of movement from
developed countries to developing countries. For example, for
several years we have seen small four-wheel-drive tractors that
were designed for the small fields of Asia being introduced in-
to the United States.
We are also seeing production practices being imported from
developing countries to the United States and other developed
countries. For instance, Asian farmers who have contributed
so much to solve world hunger problems through the green
revolution did so with fertilizers and pesticides. However, the
costs of such inputs in Asian countries are high, and farmers
were careful in what, how, and when they used such inputs.
This is the essence of low- or proper-input agriculture. There
is much that American farmers can learn from those who we
usually think of as less developed.
>• From short-term to long-term. Our planning, action, and
evaluation strategies are changing from short-term to long-term.
We will shift from making decisions because of short-term
economic and political gains to being concerned about the long-
term health of humans and the environment. I think sustainable
agriculture is a long-term perspective to farming.
>• From hierarchies to networks. The emphasis of the farmer-
rancher research and demonstration programs included in the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's low-input/sustainable agri-
culture (LISA) program is designed to network farmers to farm-
ers and also farmers to researchers, educators, and technology
transfer agents. This shift in organization should lead to new
and improved strategies for farmers to organize themselves so
they can better deal with issues affecting their farms and com-
munities. We no longer look toward the hierarchies of research,
extension, and technology transfer agencies to solve all of the
problems. I believe that the future organization of agriculture
will resemble a multidirectional, multirelationship web instead
of a chain. An interesting question is how decentralized agen-
cies will allow themselves to become and how much respon-
sibility will individuals at the field level be given to interract
with farmers so that all participants work in a self-help mode?
Because low- or proper-input farming will result in more diver-
sified enterprises as well as diversified crops, agency person-
nel will have to deal with each farm as a unique, individual
enterprise.
>• From centralization to decentralization. Individuals will
become more responsible for decision-making as well as tak-
ing action. Our past approach to farm programs tended toward
centralization. Decoupling and decentralization are highly re-
lated concepts. As farmers diversify enterprises, they will seek
new partners to joint-venture a variety of farming activities, in-
cluding sharing of knowledge and marketing. How will the agen-
cies deal with field personnel who will have to adapt the "tech
guide" to fit local conditions? How will the tech guides and
extension publications be revised to include local knowledge?
>• From institutional help to self-help. In agriculture this
means a new era when farmers will work with one another to
accomplish common goals. Research, education, and technical
assistance agencies will become partners in terms of gaining
knowledge from as well as giving knowledge to farmers. We
will have to become life-long or continuous learners if we are
to become more responsible for our own decisions and actions.
>• From representative democracy to participatory democ-
racy. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, which
requires environmental impact assessment and allows citizens
90 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
vavolvemetvt in tKe process from review of draft environmental
impact statements to active involvement in preparing the assess-
ment to the right to legally appeal government agency actions,
is an example of a shift toward participatory democracy.
>• From North to South. The geographical shift indicated in
the tenth megatrend has been described as a shift from the north-
ern industrial Rust Belt to the southern Sun Belt. While this
seems to be true, a more drastic trend seems to be abandon-
ment of the heartland as people migrate to the coastal states.
Both trends have left heartland cities fighting to maintain an
economic and cultural base. Small towns have already been con-
solidated into larger communities. The result is fewer and fewer
neighbors to add a quality of life to our rural communities and
to pay taxes to maintain rural services and infrastructure. This
trend does not bode well for rural America or agriculture,
whether it goes by low-input, conventional, or some other name.
The challenge
Seldom have the tools and practices we use today been the
result of one discovery. For instance, what one discovery led
to the development of the tractor? Most advances are the result
of someone combining many ideas, each contributed by some-
one else, into a new practice, product, or service. Solutions
to problems faced by agriculture today will come about by com-
bining ideas contributed by others. Who will lead in this effort?
*- Individuals who have a diverse background of knowledge
from many disciplines or who are able to productively work
with people from many disciplines.
>• Individuals who have the courage, freedom, and flexibility
to experiment and test the new combination of ideas that they
develop.
>• Individuals who are able to focus on and develop solu-
tions for specialized local problems but who understand the
global implications of the problems and solutions.
>• Individuals who are open to and encourage new ideas,
but who also challenge ideas and insist that those who promote
ideas are willing to discuss them and allow others to add to
them.
Thus, the challenge is to develop and apply knowledge from
a wide array of disciplines so that problems can be looked at
from all angles and multiple solutions can be considered. This
requires that people have the freedom to think and to act on
their thoughts to solve local problems. The only way to improve
the world's agricultural situation is by improving each and every
farm—one at a time.
The challenge is to neither reject nor endorse each new idea
that comes along. If an idea seems too good to be true, it prob-
ably is. Yet that idea may hold the key to something that will
work. Consider each idea, compare it with your prior knowl-
edge, test it, combine it with the ideas of others, and use it when
and where appropriate to solve problems.
Leadership is not forcing other people to do what you want
to be done, but empowering other people to accomplish what
they want to accomplish. Sustainable agricultural programs are
built around the idea that farmers and ranchers will be in con-
trol. That is how it should have been all the time. In the past,
agencies and the policies passed by Congress may have played
too powerful a role in the system. It is of little value to debate
whether someone took responsibility from farmers or farmers
gave up their responsibility. It is proper, however, to move for-
ward and support farmers as they struggle to empower them-
selves to make decisions and be in more control of their lives
and their farms. D
An open letter to the
agricultural community
on defining sustainability
By Rick Williams
A' this time we must carefully refine our definitions of
agricultural sustainability and a host of related terms.
The necessity stems from a generally imprecise concep-
tualization of what sustainability can possibly be. It also grows
out of deficient consideration of appropriate time scales on
which to judge this property of ecological permanence.
Any attempt to define the properties of complex systems, such
as agricultural field, farm, market, or ecosystem, falls short
of the reality of those things. Sustainability grows best from
a fertile imagination and a well-planted education. Sustainability
becomes adaptive as a human way of living, physically and
spiritually. It cannot be defined only in measurable parameters.
Clarifying perspectives
In identifying limits to potential sustainability of agricultural
systems, the most critical variables are not those definable in
economic terms but rather those arising from ecological en-
tities and relationships. I should note here the derivations of
the words economy and ecology because these are the supposi-
tions from which views of sustainability necessarily arise. Econ-
omy is formed from Greek roots, oikos and nomos, meaning
"management of the household." Ecology is also a combina-
tion from the Greek, oikos and logos, denoting "rationale of
the household." Thus, my proposed tenet is that sustainability
is ecological; it derives from inherent properties of the "house-
hold," not from its "management."
This approach—to view sustainability as a property arising
from homeostasis within the ecosystem—implies that human
management is critical in allowing human use, without appre-
ciable abuse, of the system in question. Good management re-
quires intimate knowledge of the system's ecology and intuitive
perception of when the system is "right." And it requires aware-
ness of, and action on, the degree to which intervention is possi-
ble without creating substantial instability and disequilibrium
in the system. Simply, management does not imply control.
To the degree we can accurately interpret archaeological and
fossil evidence, we can say with little doubt that the most sus-
tainable human systems were those of small groups of hunter-
gatherers dispersed within the ecological resource. Those con-
ditions, with a limited human population, may have been main-
tained for several hundred thousand years. The oldest agricul-
tural systems may be, at the outside, several thousand years in
existence. The difference in scale is obvious. With this tentative
comparison, it is pertinent to ask several questions: Can agri-
cultural systems be sustained for very long at all? What are the
inherent limits to agricultural systems? What limited the far older
hunting-gathering systems?
These concerns can be attributed to the human influence
called management. The critical characteristics that make man-
agement inappropriate for sustainability are the specific states
of mind of the managers. When people believe they control the
system, their management is inappropriate. When people ex-
pect the system to produce an output without reasonably balanc-
Rick Williams is an assistant professor of agriculture/biology, life sciences,
Ferrum College, Ferrum, Virginia 24088.
January-February 1990 91
-------
ing inputs, the management is unreasonable. When people think
their actions in the system are inconsequential, management
is faulty. When people try to dominate, rather than cooperate,
the approach is unsustainable.
Obviously these statements suggest bias, and mine may be
particularly extreme. But I am justified in setting my sights on
at least a hundred thousand years more of human agricultural
survival. Even that scale may appear limited if we are strongly
optimistic. We should try to be hopeful. Such an attitude is in
reality humbling, not egocentric, and it compels us to make
difficult decisions with considerably greater ease. Life-sus-
taining decisions in truth they are.
Components of sustainable management
The agricultural community at local and global levels must
review seriously the options for sustainability. It should be ob-
vious that no one approach is applicable to all farming situa-
tions. Certain principles, however, can provide guidelines toward
achieving sustainability. These broad concepts are developed
here by discussing some components or classes of agricultural
systems. These things are grouped by categories of how sus-
tainable they are commonly perceived as being. The first
category consists of components perceived as more sustainable
and the second, those considered less sustainable.
Agricultural practices commonly thought to have greater
potential sustainabilities have been classified in recent decades
with such titles as low-input, organic, ecological, regenerative,
and biological. A variety of distinctive and not-so-distinctive
classes of practices have arisen or been reborn as practices called
conventional have become apparently less and less sustainable.
Probably, those alternative methods are more sustainable, but
whether such sustainability is so as a matter of scale or as a
matter of presupposition is an open question. Decades or cen-
turies are the scales within which I see differences. Those dif-
ferences are meaningful enough, providing useful direction at
this point, but not final answers. Simply, no final answers are
possible because sustainability is a relative phenomenon.
The qualities these supposedly more sustainable approaches
to agricultural practice have in common are apparently the
nature and level of production inputs. The nature of the inputs
is distinguishable as natural (or with little processing prior to
use). The level of inputs is seen as low, but in actuality it may
not be. An organic farm actually may haul in more total in-
puts, on a tonnage basis, than a corresponding conventional
farm. The qualitative differences of respective inputs may be
a difference in the degree of processing and a difference in the
final form of the input.
An organic farm may use rock phosphate, and a conventional
farm may use calcium or diammonium phosphate. Both types
of farms may result in the same level of depletion of the basic
resource, minable phosphates. Both types may alter the preex-
isting ecosystem to equivalent degrees. Valid and complete
assessments are difficult to make. The organic farm probably
increases the total phosphate pool, just as the conventional farm
may do. Both alter the biological community compared to the
earlier, unmanaged ecosystem. These comparisons suggest that
we must question what criteria are most suitable to judge
sustainability.
Conventional practices have been lumped as largely less sus-
tainable. These practices include the introduction of synthetic
pesticides, the application of processed fertilizers, and the use
of machine tillage. The last practice has been shared by ap-
proaches considered more and less sustainable; this overlap
clouds the issue. The degrees to which the first two practices
are less sustainable have not been determined finally. These
decisions will never be made absolutely because economics and
politics have decided their fates in advance of ecological deter-
minations. Of course, the ecological repercussions of those prac-
tices are also of considerable concern. As such, their sus-
tainabilities have been presupposed, perhaps justifiably, perhaps
not, when we compare them to the full range of practices that
are presumptively considered more sustainable.
I purposefully make these arguments in an unclear manner—
to illustrate metaphorically the degree to which these points have
been glossed over by scientific circles and by the various ex-
pository media. The long-term scale has not been considered
adequately, in my opinion. The sustainabilities of all these ap-
proaches may pale in the arena of millenia. Most participants
and observers have not addressed whether we should question
the various styles of agriculture in that context. In my view,
practices should be compared definitely on that level of scale,
if we are to be confident in our assessments, because that is
the very level of ecological spans.
Ecological constraints are the ultimate determinants of sus-
tainability. These restraints act primarily in two forms: in limita-
tions to physical resource flows and in alterations to communi-
ty gene pools. In constructing agricultural systems, humans have
affected both the flows of resources and the compositions of
gene pools. These changes were apparently necessary and de-
liberate or accidental, but there are few assurances (except the
passage of time) that any or all of them are sustainable. Sus-
tainability itself must be defined in terms of time scale first,
and then the whole range of agricultural practices must be cor-
related to specific limiting factors and to the significant interac-
tions among those factors. This is most certainly a daunting
task. It may be easier to establish some forms of relative sus-
tainability by trial-and-error efforts and educated, intuitive
approximations.
Integrating sustainability
The previous statements can be summarized as four principles
of agroecosystern management, the first pair covering physical
resource management, the second two concerning genetic re-
source management:
1. Yield expectations and product removals from the agro-
ecosystem should be kept conservative and moderate.
2. Intended and unintended inputs to the agroecosystern should
be restricted, and losses other than product removals should
be minimized.
3. All genetic additions and removals should maintain or
enhance community structure and function within the
agroecosystern.
4. Any alterations in genetic composition of the community
should maintain or enhance the diversity of the agroecosystem.
These principles are conceivably consistent with the millenial
scale proposed as ecologically appropriate for comparing sus-
tainabilities. They are not bound by economic restrictions and
so are less complicated by social and political influences. I do
not pretend that the aspects involved in fair distribution of a
healthful diet to the earth's people are not crucial to sustainabili-
ty. But I do suggest that this goal may be better handled by con-
cerning ourselves first with creating conservative ecological
management by a conscious, capable human population. Of
course, efforts on all fronts have to be integrated for even
marginal effectiveness.
Science can help in these efforts by carefully identifying and
92 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
quantifying the \imits to achieving long-term sustainability.
Science, however, can by no means make final determinations
because personal and moral judgments are required in human
development, especially as we attempt to harmonize more
creatively with the earthly song. Science is limited by observ-
ability and measurement. Sustainability, however, requires some
efforts toward tapping a higher perception—intuition.
If I seem to speak confidently, it is from observation, reflec-
tion, and contemplation. By no means do I intend to say I know
absolutely. What I intend to project is a sense of the mystery
surrounding human existence and transcendence. Sustainabili-
ty is the physical expression of wholehearted exploration of that
mystery. The ancient hunter-gatherers and some early agricul-
turalists may have known this by virtue of the rituals they per-
formed. Many of those rituals apparently focused on the human
relationship to earth, water, sky, and heaven and to the multi-
tude of living companions those people knew. Their purpose
seems to have been to sacredly affirm those fellowships. Their
effect may have been to ensure the long-term continuance of
those ties. Science cannot replace those functions; it does not
affirm sacredness.
There well may be modern examples of such spiritual intimacy
with the earth and its creatures. These should be left intact and
working. What the rest of us need, along with the knowledge
wrought by science, is a knowledge of place and a belief in the
sanctity of the earth and the multitudes of the living. The knowl-
edge of place grows from direct experience of place and years
of it. The belief in the sacredness of place grows from awareness
of the wildness of place and of human existence from place.
These cannot come from the efforts of science, though in prac-
tice the knowledge and belief of place may benefit from science.
Through this commentary, I am attempting to broaden the
field and to expand the focus of human reflections on and ac-
tions toward sustainability. The most valuable element in achiev-
ing that permanence is diversity—diversity of involvement, of
thought, and of action. Most certainly we must make every ef-
fort to maintain diversity of living forms. That diversity cradles
and nurtures the environment necessary for the creative diver-
sities of human living. I hope that is a living through many,
many years and a living fully within our haven, the Earth. D
The flexibility of
sustainable agriculture
By Wilson Scaling
WHILE probably no two people agree on a definition,
"low-input, sustainable agriculture" generally refers to
a wide range of farming styles and practices. It includes
systems ranging from reduced chemical use to those labeled
organic farming. The techniques used in a sustainable system
may include crop rotations and other cultural practices that con-
trol pests, substitution of manure or green manure crops for
synthetic fertilizers, careful nutrient management, and low-ini-
tial-cost conservation practices. And let's not overlook Amer-
ica's vast ranching industry on native range—the broad-scale,
low-input agriculture and the original low-input agriculture in
this country that involves no plowing, no planting, no inten-
sive fertilization. The rationale for low-input agriculture is eco-
nomic, environmental, and social. As concern for the environ-
Wilson Scaling is chief of the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20013.
mental, and social. As concern for the environment increases,
more and more producers are becoming interested.
We need to dispel two myths about low-input agriculture.
First, some people have the mistaken impression that it means
lower production and less profit. In fact, in some cases it can
reduce costs and increase net profit. Instead of maximum pro-
duction at any cost, the goal is to find the optimal production
level, given production costs and the desire for sound resource
conservation.
Perhaps the words "low input" are misleading. Instead, I like
to use simply "sustainable agriculture" because it covers a wide
choice of agricultural systems and because I want to dispel the
second myth—that it will do away with agrichemicals.
While some people envision the elimination of agrichemicals,
most understand sustainable agriculture to mean a rejection of
the conventional wisdom, "If a little is good, a lot is better."
The emphasis is on using the amount of agrichemicals truly
needed to take care of pest and fertility problems without
drastically reducing crop yields or livestock production; in other
words, the wise and prudent use of agrichemicals—a goal that
most of us can share, given today's production costs, thin prof-
it margins, and concern for the environment.
Responsible and conservative use of pesticides and fertilizers
just makes good sense to a farmer or rancher. It makes good
sense because it reduces costs. It makes good sense because
it protects the health of farmers, their families, their employees,
and neighbors by protecting water quality and reducing exposure
to chemicals.
Our good sense also tells us that the use of agrichemicals
is important to the production of food and fiber in this country.
Without fertilizers or pesticides, farmers and ranchers would
be producing much less food at a higher cost. Without herbi-
Hardy Northern Grown
Planting Stock
Bare-root
Transplants
Bare-root
Seedlings
Container
Grown
Seedlings
TOLL FREE 1-800-447-4745
ESTERN
INE NURSERIES
• •V^B ESTABLISHED IH23
INC.
Dept SWJ10 • P.O. Box 250
Fryeburg, Maine 04037
-------
cidcs, producers in the range country I come from would be
less able to control brush, which crowds out grass and uses water
that could replenish streams.
Thanks to the close cooperation of the research community
and the agrichemical industry, we are learning a lot about the
sensible, practical use and management of agrichemicals.
Already technology is becoming incredibly precise. Agrichem-
ical needs, for example, now can be measured in ounces per
acre instead of pounds per acre. Pest scouting, band applica-
tion of herbicides, and spot treatment of pest problems as they
arise can all control costs and protect water quality. Agrichem-
ical companies and other researchers continue to develop new
chemicals with more targeted or shorter-duration effects. This
is basically what we have known as integrated pest manage-
ment (IPM). It is not something brand new. IPM has been used
by progressive managers for many years.
Many of the practices recommended by the Soil Conserva-
tion Service (SCS) support sustainability; crop rotations, grazing
rotations, plant selections, and waste management are but a few.
SCS will continue to improve the technology available in the
field, and we plan to work with the other U.S. Department of
Agriculture agencies to help producers manage their total opera-
tion wisely. Our aim is to offer farmers and ranchers the widest
possible choice of cost-effective and environmentally sound
resource management systems with common sense, long-term
profitability, and protection of America's resource base as the
basic goals.
Pluses
I encourage those people in production agriculture to look
at the possible advantages of sustainable agricultural systems.
Here are just a few:
>• Increased soil organic matter content, which improves soil
microbiology and the soil's tilth and moisture-holding capacity.
>- Increased crop diversity. This can reduce fanners' risks
and benefit wildlife.
>• Erosion reduction, thanks to the increased use of sod-
based rotations or better crop residue management.
>- Lower per-acre production costs, a benefit of more selec-
tive chemical usage. Manure can supply some or all of the
nitrogen crops need. Crop rotations that include nitrogen-fixing
legumes can play an important role in meeting the nitrogen re-
quirements of a crop. Weeds can be controlled by crop rotation
or mechanical cultivation, or both, and by careful management
of herbicides. Biological agents might be an option for con-
trolling weeds and insects.
>• More efficient use of energy.
>• Less chance of health risks associated with repeated ex-
posure to chemicals.
>*• In some cases, the opportunity to take advantage of or
to create special markets for fruits and vegetables.
>• Better conservation of water, both quality and quantity.
>• Improved habitat for a wide variety of animals, birds, and
fish.
Minuses
Sustainable agriculture, however, is not a cure-all. So let's
consider the other side of the equation as well:
>• Some techniques can be more labor- and management-
intensive. For example, pest scouting and more careful monitor-
ing of soil fertility will require more time and more skill.
^- There may be less tune for earning off-farm income.
>~ In some cases, the farmer has to raise livestock or have
access to livestock to make economical use of forage and to
provide manure for nutrients.
>• The switch to a longer crop rotation or changes in tillage
practices may require additional investment in equipment and
other operating costs.
>• If large numbers of producers adopt the use of rotations
with sod or legumes, there may or may not be markets readily
available to sell the extra forage.
A way of thinking
These are practical considerations for any operation, and I
encourage all farmers and ranchers to weigh their options.
The principles behind sustainable agriculture apply not just
to farming. Americans in our cities and suburbs can draw on
them as well, for prudent management of lawns, gardens, golf
courses, nurseries, and road medians.
This practical kind of resource management that we call sus-
tainable agriculture offers the flexibility that many American
producers need to reduce farm costs, meet consumer demand,
increase profits, and help the environment. It offers common-
sense lessons and a way of thinking about soil and water con-
servation. D
Agriculture's role in
protecting water quality
By Susan Offutt
A1RICULTURE is the remaining, major unregulated
source of environmental, primarily water, pollutants.
The nation's water resources include underground
aquifers as well as lakes, rivers, and the oceans. As a signifi-
cant nonpoint source of groundwater contamination, agriculture
presents a thorny problem for the design of public measures
to prevent pollution. Environmental policies tackled point-
source pollution of surface waters first because cause-and-effect
was easily observable; solutions were, therefore, easily found;
and enforcement was possible. Groundwater problems, in con-
trast, are hard to detect and individual sources of pollution hard
to identify.
The administration initiative
With the budget for fiscal year 1990, President Bush launched
a federal government initiative to protect water resources from
contamination by fertilizers and pesticides without jeopardiz-
ing the economic vitality of U.S. agriculture. Federal agencies
will design water quality programs to accommodate both the
immediate need to halt contamination, particularly of ground-
water, and the future need to alter farming practices that may
threaten the environment. The President explicitly made the
point that farmers ultimately must be responsible for changing
production practices to avoid contaminating groundwater and
surface waters. Federal and state resources will be available,
however, to provide information and technical assistance to
farmers so that environmentally sensitive techniques can be im-
plemented at minimal cost.
Susan Offutt is senior examiner with the Natural Resources Division, Office
of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503.
94 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture leads the initiative, in
cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration. The President proposes that base
funding of a quarter of a billion dollars be increased by about
a third ($70 million) in 1990. Full, unearmarked funding of the
initiative is critical, especially in this, its first year, as the ad-
ministration envisions and has planned for a five-year program.
The President's plan embodies the belief that the most sensi-
ble approach to preventing water quality degradation for ferm-
ing and for society is reliance on the farm community itself
to devise and implement a pollution control program. Within
this framework, research and education should develop and pro-
mote use of environmentally benign production practices. The
very real threat of federal or state regulation should be a strong
incentive for the agricultural community to embrace this
strategy. This tact recognizes that federal regulation would be
complicated by geographic variation in the physical environ-
ment that determines whether contamination actually does oc-
cur and with what severity. An effective regulatory solution,
one that accommodates all sitespecific factors in prescribing
best management practices, would be expensive to implement.
An ineffective regulatory solution, on the other hand, could be
wasteful in terms of inefficiency of resource use if use of chem-
icals and nutrients is proscribed unnecessarily.
The challenge to the efficacy of the envisioned voluntary ap-
proach is formidable, however. Research and development must
design a set of best management practices that farmers will con-
tinue to use even if commodity prices rise significantly or in-
put prices fall. Recent experience with adoption (and abandon-
ment) of conservation tillage instructs caution in this respect.
The lesson in designing and evaluating environmentally sen-
sitive practices is to be mindful of the presence of coinciden-
tally favorable price relationships. Over the past five to six years,
low commodity prices have provided environmental benefits by
reducing the incentive to apply pesticides and fertilizers to in-
crease yields. Low output prices may in large measure explain
the apparent success of "low-input" agriculture, although surely
many farmers' attitudes have changed as well.
And it is difficult to be sanguine about the prospect of suc-
cess today because basic production technology still depends
upon fertilizers and chemicals. In the future, ensuring against
surface water and groundwater contamination will require a tru-
ly alternative agriculture. Plants that fix their own nitrogen,
repel insects, and outcompete weeds would obviate the need
for man to help by applying nutrients and pest toxins. In this
respect, advances in biotechnology could make very real con-
tributions. The short-term question of coping with contamina-
tion persists, however, because society will not wait for science
to deliver on this promise. Because groundwater contamina-
tion is very slow to dissipate and very difficult and expensive
to ameliorate, there is no time to lose.
To both society at large and to farmers, a program of research
and education aimed at water quality protection would have a
number of advantages over compulsion through regulation. For
farmers, education and voluntary compliance offer at least a
partial cost-share through subsidization of the development of
new farming practices and of the dissemination of information
that aids in adoption. Maximum flexibility is provided to
farmers when they may choose the practices that not only meet
environmental objectives but also the needs of their own enter-
prises. And, importantly, voluntary programs are most in the
spirit of farm policy over the past 50 years. For society, allow-
ing farmers maximum flexibility also promotes efficiency in
TRI-LOCK®
EROSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
The TRI-LOCK EROSION CONTROL SYSTEM
represents the most advanced and versatile
system in the erosion control industry. TRI-
LOCK provides the engineered alternative to
conventional erosion control materials for
revetment and channel protection. It con-
tinues to be an effective, economical and
environmentally sound method of combating
severe erosion problems.
• Coastal Shoreline Protection
• Reservoir Embankment Protection
• Culvert Inlet and Outfall Protection
• Lake Shoreline Protection
• Bridge Abutment Protection
• Dike and Levee Protection
• River Bank Protection
• Slope Protection
• Boat Launching Ramps
• Channel Lining
• Drainage Ditch Lining
• Spillway Lining
For A Free Brochure And Branch Serving Your Area Respond To This Ad Or Call Toll Free 800-777-S01L
American Excelsior Company
An employee owned company
P.O. Box 5067 / 850 Ave. H East / Arlington. TX 76011 / (817) 640-1555 / Telex 735298 AMEXCO / TELEFAX (817) 649-7816
-------
resource use because the site-specific nature of groundwater
contamination problems also dictates site-specific solutions.
Will it work?
The apparent mutual advantages of this framework notwith-
standing, the real question is, will it work? Will it actually pre-
vent groundwater contamination? And, will it work fast enough?
It seems difficult to accept the argument that farmers will adopt
environmentally sensitive practices in their own self interest.
If this were the case, they would have done so long ago. Fanners
may have alternatives to adoption of a pollution prevention
strategy. They may draw drinking water not from individual
wells but from municipal systems. As with urban areas, these
rural municipal systems' treatment assures that the link between
consumption and contamination is broken. Alternatively, a form
well may be moved to another, safer water source. Or it may
be that farmers do not view the potential costs of their exposure
to contaminated water as outweighing the benefits that chemical
and nutrient use generate.
Beyond the not inconsiderable problems with sensitivity to
commodity and input price changes, what barriers might there
be to permanent adoption of environmentally sensitive prac-
ticed? First, the question of diversification away from chemical-
intensive crops, at least to allow for rotations, is critical. While
diversification in cropping patterns currently is economically
feasible in some areas of the country, it is not clear this is true
everywhere. The economic forces, political and technological,
that make specialization profitable need to be better understood
and recognized in designing new multioutput systems.
Another barrier to groundwater quality protection may,
ironically enough, be soil conservation. As was learned with
conservation tillage, inhibiting runoff of chemicals and nutrients
may lead to their percolation through the soil and perhaps into
groundwater. What if acceptance of higher T values is the price
of saving groundwater from contamination? How can institu-
tional prejudice against such an outcome be overcome? Research
can determine whether or not there is a tradeoff between sur-
face water and groundwater quality. The more fundamental need
is to recognize and accept that, no matter what, agriculture
disturbs the natural environment. The issue is how much dis-
turbance society is willing to accept, not whether it will accept
any at all.
Regulation or voluntary action?
The President's water quality initiative puts its eggs in the
research and education basket. But it is a choice that can be
revoked. And pressure is increasing to do just that. The threat
of regulation of farming practices is very real and must be given
credence by the agricultural community. Society likely will not
extend its long-standing exemption of farmers from responsibili-
ty for polluting. Making a case on behalf of farmers will be
increasingly difficult as every other segment of the population
has shouldered more and more of the cost of all kinds of pollu-
tion prevention and abatement. Many industries, such as basic
metals, face the same stiff competition from overseas suppliers
not necessarily subject to environmental regulation. As the
President's initiative moves forward, the agricultural research
and education community needs to be vigilant about monitor-
ing progress and learning new lessons to promote farming's
responsiveness to environmental concerns. Agriculture's un-
qualified support for the initiative's activities and goals would
signal the minimum level of commitment necessary to forestall
regulatory action.
For any other sector of the economy, the allocation of the
financial burden for prevention of contamination is an easily
settled matter: the polluter pays and is compelled to do so
through regulation. Whether agriculture cannot only escape
regulation, but also avoid the costs of pollution prevention,
however, is problematic. In the absence of federal budget con-
straints, society could choose to provide farmers with a
monetary incentive to avoid polluting. Indeed, cost-sharing pro-
grams have a long history in agricultural conservation policy.
However, the scope of the effort needed to avert water quality
problems, compounded by a shortage of federal funds, precludes
extensive cost-sharing as a viable federal option. The bottom
line is that farmers must recognize that there will indeed be
costs to preventing water resource contamination and that it may
well be their responsibility to accept those costs in moving
quickly to meet society's demands for protection of environ-
mental quality. D
Converting to pesticide-free
farming: Coping with
institutions
By Jim Bender
THE obstacles a producer faces in converting to pesticide-
free farming are varied. I have come to appreciate that
certain agronomic factors may be the greatest impediment
to that conversion in many cases. Hence, some of these factors
should be identified and discussed.
The federal farm program
The federal farm program that emerged from the 1985 Food
Security Act provides an opportunity for, and an extraordinary
obstacle to, conversion to pesticide-free farming. The obstacle
is the notorious "use or lose" feature of crop subsidy program
participation.1 When a farmer plants less than his or her per-
mitted acreage of program crops, a formula comes into play
that can reduce permitted acreage—the basis for program
benefits—in subsequent years. Acreage base for the next year
equals one-fifth of the sum of acreage planted or considered
planted over the last five years. A year of rotation to a non-
program crop, such as clover, could result in the loss of up to
20 percent of a farm's base. It would be difficult to overstate
the problem. Added to the challenges of adopting a new way
of farming is that of reduced revenue from the federal farm
program.
There are ways, however, to minimize the problem. As an
example, I will use a farm in a soybean/corn rotation—typical
in the Midwest—where the feed-grain base is 50 to 60 percent
of total acres. The crop diversification and rotation required
of pesticide-free farming entails that such a large feed-grain base
cannot be preserved. Some of that base must eventually be
sacrificed. The key is to delay the base reduction as long as
'The 1990 farm program has been amended to permit some substitution of non-
program crops on base acres without loss of base. Because this change may
be temporary, it remains useful to discuss strategies for coping with general
program provisions that were obtained for many years.
Jim Bender is a farmer, R.R. #175, Weeping Water, Nebraska 68463.
96 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
possible. One way is to commence with rotation and diversifica-
tion by substituting from nonprogram crop acreage. Space for
alfalfa could be derived from soybean acreage—which is not
a program crop—rather than subtracting from the feed-grain
base. That way, the feed-grain base is temporarily preserved.
Only after the nonprogram crop acres have been pared down
as much as possible will feed-grain base acres have to be
forfeited. This stage also can proceed as slowly as possible.
Before giving up much of the feed-grain base, a farmer should
allow time to be confident with new crops, rotations, and
methods. This process could be spread out over many years
if a farmer wishes.
The opportunity in the farm program for conversion to
pesticide-free farming is found in the two set-aside programs.
The yearly set-aside can be used to generally detoxify fields.
More specifically, set-aside can be used to begin crop diver-
sification and rotation, isolate and experiment with special weed
problems, for example, bindweed, Canadian thistle, tan weed,
hempdogbance, and begin to establish legumes and grasses. It
also provides forage opportunities.
The Conservation Reserve Program extends opportunities to
establish grasses and valuable trees. Beyond that, however, it
could be used to partially stabilize income and workload for
a conversion-minded farmer who is facing a variety of uncertain-
ties. One way to make that conversion and also participate in
the long-term set-aside is to commit just a portion of a farm
to the program.
Lenders and farm managers
In discussing how to appeal to lenders, managers, and land-
owners, I will assume them to be somewhat rational (hence per-
suadable) and largely concerned with economic considerations.
Lenders, managers, and farm owners who are also sensitive to
environmental issues could have a wide array of considerations
that will not be discussed here.
A subject to emphasize with a lender is the financial advan-
tage of livestock. Livestock raising will almost surely be in-
troduced, expanded, or merely more carefully organized as the
farmer carries out the conversion process. At minimum, that
offers the promise of greater financial stability.
Issues relevant to both lenders and managers are the prospects
for reduced costs and enhanced financial stability through diver-
sity. Cost reduction arises from gradually trading management
for cash inputs and from methods that economically enhance
soil resources, such as crop rotation, and use of legumes and
grasses.
Lenders and farm managers are entitled to considerably more
than the general discussions suggested above. To see why, con-
sider what a conversion-minded farmer is proposing. From a
lender's and manager's perspective, the proposed system is
fraught with uncertainties, and it gradually but permanently
reduces government financial support. Even if these two changes
can be made plausible, lenders and managers must decide
whether the individual farmer who would be making the change
is capable of doing so.
Accordingly, the farmer should prepare a written plan. This
plan would describe in detail the goal, the conversion process,
and a timetable. The timetable should provide for periodic
review with all relevant parties. It should be to the farm roughly
what long-term financial statements are to the farmer's finan-
cial picture and direction.
Given the magnitude of what is being asked of lenders and
managers, a written plan constitutes minimum preparation. Sub-
WHY PAY
INFLATED PRICES
FOR YOUR
SOIL SAMPLERS?
Equip Yourself with Quality
EIJKELKAMP Soil Samplers
& SAVE!
Contact us for details on our many
types of Augers. Also,
Infiltrometers, Bulk Density
Samplers, Peat Samplers, Root
Augers, Permeameters, etc.
EIJKELKAMP: At the forefront of Soil
Technology!
Ask today for our catalog of Soil
Testing Equipment
SAUZE TECHNICAL
^PRODUCTS CORP.
212 Oak Street Extension, Pittsburgh, N.Y. 12901
(518) 561-6440
-------
milting a log of study also would be appropriate (including such
items as the farmer's reading, seminars attended, and tours
taken). Reading material also could be provided for the lender
or manager, and model farms could be visited.
Farm owners
The relationship with the farm owner in the context of farm
change is much more complex. There are two broad issues.
The first involves persuading the farm owner. That seems to
require a pattern similar to the process of convincing lenders
and managers. The general issues are long-term productivity
(from improved soil conservation, rotation, and livestock) and
financial stability.2 The written plan can be much the same as
before, except with emphasis placed on farm changes rather than
on the farmer's personal financial situation.
The second issue involves agreeing to terms that protect the
tenant's situation. This issue arises for two reasons. First, con-
version requires that acquisition of skills, work, and sacrifice
come early, with the payoff emerging toward the end of the pro-
cess. For example, in a typical conversion situation the tenant
embarks on a long-term, soil-building program that includes
detoxifying, adjusting acidity, applying manure, and organiz-
ing a crop rotation that includes legumes. The positive results,
such as increased organic material, tilth, and water absorption,
will be years away.
Second, part of the very meaning of conversion to pesticide-
free or sustainable farming in general is that capital inputs (part
of which the farm owner supplies) are replaced by labor and
management (most or all of which the tenant provides). An ob-
vious example is to trade chemical weed control for a strategy
that includes careful rotation, adjusted and carefully planned
planting dates, rotary hoeing, harrowing for cultivation, and
shovel row-crop cultivation. Another example is to trade spray-
ing of noxious perennials, such as bindweed, to provide tem-
porary control for the nonchemical strategy of isolation and con-
tinuous tillage (which requires years) to provide for complete
eradication.
Lease arrangements that do not address these matters place
the tenant in an unacceptable situation. A minimally satisfac-
tory lease in this context would have several components. It
would be long-term, assuming that the tenant performs as agreed
upon. It would stipulate the landowner's responsibilities for
long-term investments, such as fences. It would provide for ten-
et compensation for adopting methods that partially replace
landowners' costs. That provision can be expressed in adjusted
crop shares, in cash rent, or with cash reimbursement.
Tenant farming entails serious obstacles for conversion to
pesticide-free and sustainable farming. In general, if the land-
owner assents only reluctantly to trying sustainable techniques
or if he or she will not be tolerant of experimentation and
mistakes, conversion is not likely to succeed. Another option,
although convoluted and distressingly time-consuming, would
be to convert a separate farm unit not associated with the
recalcitrant landowner, then use it as a demonstration farm to
attempt to persuade that landowner. D
•'Conventional fanning, with its priority on corn and soybeans, imposes grain
storage and handling pressures on many farms. These farms often have a cluster
of buildings suited to the more diversified farming of earlier decades, rather
than modern expensive storage and handling equipment. Tenants associated
with such farms have an opportunity. They may point out to the farm owner
lh.it a diversified cropping plan is likely to reduce grain storage demands. Fur-
ther, the old sheds, barns, and grainaries may be suited to alternative crops,
such as hay and oats, as well as some of the tenant's livestock plans.
Wildlife and fish and
sustainable agriculture
By Ann Y. Robinson
A" I exciting dialogue has started across the country, as
conservationists, organic food proponents, and average
farmers find they have some concerns in common-
concerns about groundwater, about health, and about net prof-
its in agriculture.
The movement, if it can be called that, has been labelled low-
input, sustainable, regenerative, or alternative agriculture.
Whatever the name, the notion has been hailed by many as the
best hope of reducing chemicals in water and food supplies and
in the farmer's work environment. What is not so commonly
recognized is the potential that this type of agriculture offers
to improve the quality and quantity of habitat for fish and
wildlife.
Conventional versus sustainable
To understand how a more sustainable way of farming could
benefit wildlife, it helps to review the ways such a system dif-
fers from what has come to be known as "conventional." On
modern, conventional farms the scale of fields and equipment
. is large. Usually, one or two crops are grown every year. Fewer
of these farms have livestock, and if they do, animals are fre-
quently confined in factory-like conditions that necessitate
regular doses of antiobiotics to keep them healthy. Soil erosion
levels are often high, as are the levels of pesticides applied to
control weeds, insects, and diseases. Aerial application of chem-
icals has grown more common, exposing wider areas to drift.
Fence rows, woods, and wetlands continue to disappear.
In contrast, the aim of sustainable farmers is to work with
nature. They try to avoid many problems by maintaining healthy
soil and plants and, when possible, to harness biological mech-
anisms like natural predators and seasonal rhythms that exploit
pests' life cycles. Hands-on management and on-the-farm re-
sources are valued over expensive off-farm inputs. Most ad-
vocates of sustainable agriculture are quick to point out that
their goal is not necessarily to eliminate chemicals but to
significantly reduce the need for them.
To achieve this reduction, farmers using these methods
typically use selected rotations and cover crops to maintain soil
"balance" and organic matter; substitute legumes, careful
manure management, and biological controls for chemicals; and
cut use of synthetic nitrogen to prevent possible disruption of
soil biota and to save energy. Many such formers practice ridge-
till, a conservation tillage technique that requires minimal use
of herbicides. There are other important features, aside from
reducing chemical use, that tend to characterize this approach,
including diversification of farm enterprises and an emphasis
on buying locally, both which further the goal of sustaining com-
munities as well as farms and natural resources.
Adherents of sustainable agriculture are more likely than their
counterparts who practice conventional agriculture to voice
respect for the nonhuman components of the rural landscape.
They seem to recognize that wildlife helps gauge the general
Ann Y. Robinson, agricultural specialist for the Izaak Walton League of
America, 801 Commerce Drive, Decorah, Iowa 52101, is also a member of the
Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group and a member of the Univer-
sity of Minnesota's Advisory Panel for an Endowed Chair in Sustainable
Agriculture.
98 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
health, of local ecosystems and enriches the countryside with
beauty and economic opportunity.
The promise for wildlife
This type of thinking and farming holds real promise for
wildlife and fish. For one thing, a greater diversity of crops
and increased cover on fields could benefit a wide range of
animals, particularly grassland birds. Because sedimentation
from soil erosion is a number one threat to aquatic systems,
an agriculture that takes better care of the land will be a boon
to fish and anglers.
Pesticides can be damaging to fish, birds, and animals. While
many insecticides are short-lived and relatively nontoxic to
vertebrates at normal application rates, most are poisonous to
aquatic invertebrates, a vital link in the aquatic food chain.
Insecticides used on or near wetlands, particularly aerial ap-
plications, have been shown to reduce reproductive success for
ducks and kill ducklings.
Weed killers are less of a threat to wildlife, but when they
enter water supplies they have been shown to harm fish, par-
ticularly when more than one chemical is applied. Herbicides
eliminate many of the plants that ducks feed on and that birds
and fish use as cover. These chemicals also stunt and kill
shelterbelt trees and other nontarget vegetation important as
wildlife habitat.
Past conservation programs have operated primarily to patch
up the undesired consequences of "regular" farm practices.
Most have had limited success, which is understandable con-
sidering that they have generally worked against farm programs
and tax and credit policies, which reward such practices as land
clearing, farm expansion, drainage, and monocropping. The
sodbuster, swampbuster, and conservation compliance provi-
sions of the Food Security Act of 1985 removed some of these
incentives for resource degradation. However, as is often the
case with regulatory-type fixes, implementation has been
stymied by politics and other constraints.
Prevention, not regulation, is the focus of regenerative agri-
culture. If the approach is to catch on, farm programs must be
modified to support and reward landowners who use sustainable
practices. A portion of farm program benefits should be re-
directed to encourage farmers to integrate alternative approaches
into farming operations. Research and extension are essential
to provide reliable information about what works in different
situations.
Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Wyche Fowler (D-GA), and other
senate agriculture committee members are working toward a
consensus, sustainable agriculture and conservation package that
includes many provisions from earlier versions of Fowler's pro-
posed Farm Conservation and Water Protection Act. Senator
Richard Lugar (R-IN) is sponsoring the administration's farm
proposals that feature some compatible measures, such as pro-
tection of farm program base for those who want to diversify
crops, and a version of the multi-year set-aside, supported by
advocates of wildlife. Representative Jim Jontz (D-IN) has
authored a bill that would modify commodity programs to en-
courage soil building rotations and provide assistance to farmers
who implement a five-year "integrated farm management plan"
designed to reduce chemical use and protect the environment.
Other initiatives are expected as the 1990 Farm Bill develops,
all attempting to eliminate some of the obstacles to steward-
ship, and move sustainable practices into the mainstream.
That is the challenge, to encourage mainstream producers to
adopt ways of farming that are profitable, yet work more respect-
fully with nature to reduce reliance on chemicals and to pro-
tect soil, water, and wildlife. Some farmers have already em-
barked on this transition, some have been farming this way for
years, and there are many others who want to try. Their efforts
deserve support from hunters, anglers, and all who care about
wildlife. D
Curlex - Keeping America Green For 30 Years
Curlex Erosion Control Blankets can be imitated. When we invented
Curlex 30 years ago, we conceived a product to ease soil erosion
problems. Curlex performs! Curlex is 100% Aspen, containing no weed
seed, contaminants, or chemicals. We don't use straw - only weed-free
uncontaminated Aspen, proven in 30 years of performance under nature's
adverse conditions. We could lower our standards, change the patented
Curlex process, use straw, hay, or fruit husks instead of Aspen, but it
wouldn't be Curlex. Only an imitation of the undisputed leader - the
original, high quality erosion control blanket - Curlex.
Other American Excelsior
Problem Solving Products
• Silt Fences: Prefabricated sediment control fencing
• Enkamat®: Nylon soil erosion matting
• Enkadrain®: Subsurface drainage matting
• Geotextiles: Fabrics for drainage & soil stabilization
Working with nature to help create a better environment.
American Excelsior Company
An employee owned company
P.O. Box 5067 / 850 Ave. H East / Arlington, TX 76005 / (817) 640-1555 / Telex 735298 AMEXCO / Toll Free (800) 777-SOIL / Telefax (817) 649-7816
-------
ACP cost-share
practice developed
The Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service has developed a
pilot cost-share practice that will allow
Agricultural Conservation Program
funds to promote more sustainable
farming practices.
Integrated crop management (ICM) is
designed to minimize pesticide and
nutrient inputs while maintaining farm
income. The cost-share practice, using
many possible formats for chemical
reduction, must produce a 20 percent
reduction in chemical applications to
qualify.
ASCS state committees will pick
participants for county demonstration
projects nationwide, with five counties
per state and 20 farms per county
allowed. Among the provisions that may
be included in the ICM systems are
pest management, crop rotations,
biological pest control services, ridge-
till, planting of host crops, cover crops,
and leaf tissue analysis.
SCS software
tailors LISA
1b simplify planning for sustainable
agricultural systems, the Soil
Conservation Service has developed a
software package called the Cost and
Return Estimator (CARE).
CARE has been designed to provide
producers, fanners, and landowners a
format for making decisions on low-
input, sustainable agricultural practices
on an individual-farm basis.
CARE was developed to help land
users compare and contrast the
alternatives that go into current farming
methods. It is designed to generate
costs and returns for a land user's
present practices and use a variety of
scenarios that might affect input usage,
crop yields, and ultimately the former's
profits.
Calculations are made beginning with
a producer's base budget. This budget
is developed by the producer and SCS
personnel and is the foundation for
customizing a set of cost and returns
under a given scenario. Such items as
machinery costs, levels of usage, crop
acreage and type, fuels, irrigation
analysis, insurance, inputs, and a
variety of other factors go into the
formula for developing a picture of an
individual fanner's situation. Using
CARE can help land users better
understand and reap the benefits of
low-input, sustainable agriculture, the
agency says.
The Soil Conservation Service has
released CARE to all automated field
offices in the United States; it is also
available free of charge from Douglas
Christianson at the Soil Conservation
Service, Midwest National Technical
Center, 100 Centennial Mall North,
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508; telephone,
(402) 437-5384.
Administration's 1991
budget released
The Bush Administration's 1991
budget, sent to Congress in early
February, contains an allocation of
$48.7 billion for U.S. Department of
Agriculture programs.
Research is among the areas getting a
boost in the document. A $1 billion
allowance to go partially to USDA for
research on global environmental
change is a priority for the
administration. "The USDA will make
a significant contribution to the
President's initiative on global change,"
Secretary of Agriculture Clayton Yeutter
said in a recent USDA press release.
"All of us have an obligation to engage
in more research in this area," he said.
Other research projects include low-
input agriculture; relationship of human
health to diet and food safety; natural
plant and pest disease resistance;
biomass for energy production;
increased forest productivity; and
genetic engineering.
The Conservation Reserve Program
will be getting $2.3 billion in funding,
compared to the $1.8 billion in fiscal
year 1990, if the administration has its
way, "which should get us up to our
40-million-acre objective we have for
the Conservation Reserve," Yeutter said.
On the negative side, federal crop
insurance or disaster payment programs
will come up short in 1991. Yeutter says
that one program or the other will have
to go because "we can't afford two
[programs]," he said. Since 1980, the
federal government has spent $5 billion
on subsidizing federal crop insurance
and $8 billion on federal disaster relief,
a cost that Yeutter doesn't think belongs
on the books.
Commodity testing in market
channels will begin to provide USDA
with a statistically reliable data base on
the actual amounts of pesticide residues
in food, and a major food safety
initiative will occur.
The Farmer's Home Administration
should get $400 million, the
administration says, to help farmers
who need operating loans. The loans
will have a buy-down interest rate
subsidy provision so that more
borrowers can qualify. This buy-down
rate may bring interest rates down as
much as three percentage points. USDA
will have a whole menu of loan
programs available through FmHA in
1991, including direct loans, guaranteed
loans at commercial rates, and
guaranteed loans with interest rate
buy-downs.
Other USDA projects and their
funding requests include the "America
the Beautiful" reforestation project, a
voluntary, private-sector program that is
projected to result in the planting of
more than 1 billion trees a year in
urban and rural areas, $175 million; the
Agricultural Conservation Program,
$176 million; and initiatives for
enhancement of the environment,
including a joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service-USDA program that will be
used to enhance fish and wildlife
habitat, reduce soil erosion, and
enhance the biological environment of
rural America, $2 billion.
Wetlands agreement
gets slow start
What appeared to be a precedent-
setting agreement on a no-net-loss
wetland policy by the Bush
administration has turned into a
question mark in the minds of some
environmentalists.
The policy, aimed at stopping all
development on wetland areas, was
created in a memorandum of agreement
between the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers last November. But
opposition from developers, oil
companies, and from within the Bush
administration has slowed its approval,
100 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
despite objections from EPA
Administrator William K. Reilly and
environmentalists.
With only 100 million of the
estimated 250 million original acres of
wetlands in the U.S. remaining,
environmentalists are concerned about
the continuing loss of 300,000 to
400,000 acres of wetlands in the United
States each year. Agriculture,
accounting for about 87 percent of the
wetland destruction, is being blamed.
Wetland drainage for farming purposes
is not covered by federal law, although
the Conservation Title's swampbuster
provision has put severe limitations on
those interested in participating in
federal farm programs.
Throughout the debate, the document
has been altered from its original form
to account for the interests of
developers and local governments who
felt that the original agreement put too
many restrictions on land use.
The agreement has been signed by
EPA Administrator Reilly, who says that
this is not a diversion from President
Bush's no-net-loss policy. Quoted in the
Washington Post, White House
spokesman Alixe Glen said that EPA
and the Army Corps of Engineers were
happy with the agreement and that there
was no objection on either front. The
Bush Administration is presently
seeking to develop a more broad-based
policy that will comprehensively cover
wetlands issues.
Farm bill stirs debate
Debate swirls in Washington, D.C.
these days over the 1990 farm bill; a
host of recommendations and reactions
from farmers, researchers,
environmentalists, legislators, and others
have been laid on the table thus far in
the process of attempting to compose
one of the nation's most significant
pieces of conservation legislation.
In February, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture published its proposals for
the first farm bill of the decade. These
proposals outline the administration's
standards for U.S. agricultural,
conservation, and environmental
programs in a list of more than 60
recommendations.
The set of proposals is broad-based.
Covered are a range of issues vital to
U.S. agriculture, including international
marketing, price supports, crop disaster
assistance, science and research, and,
particularly, conservation and
environmental actions that build on the
Conservation Title of the 1985 Food
Security Act.
The compliance provisions of that
title—swampbuster, sodbuster, and
conservation compliance—will remain
in place if USDA has its way, as will
the Conservation Reserve Program,
which to date has met the goal of long-
term natural resource protection by
enrolling nearly 34 million acres of
highly erodible cropland. However,
sustaining the soil erosion control
achieved thus far and maintaining the
vegetative cover already planted on
CRP is critical to some interests.
And apparently Secretary of
Agriculture Clayton Yeutter agrees. So
the benefits of the present program are
not lost, the 1990 farm bill should
contain a more highly refined CRP, says
Yeutter, precisely targeted to support the
greatest possible environmental
improvements and to extend contracts
when the present ones begin to expire.
Other areas of concern being
addressed in this year's farm bill
include the protection of surface water
and groundwater from agricultural
runoff, wetlands conservation, food
safety standards, environmental
education, and the enhancement of land
protected under the annual acreage
reduction programs.
With the scope of interests at stake,
government agencies and special interest
groups are standing in line to provide
testimony and to assist in drafting the
legislation. Following is a summary of
the views put forth to date by USDA
and the commodity and environmental
groups on various topics encompassed
by the debate:
Conservation Reserve Program. The
CRP is a well-liked program, with
many interests favoring maintenance of
the present program and an extension of
the 10-year contracts past their
expiration dates.
USDA proposes that Congress supply
additional support for bringing
environmentally sensitive areas into the
CRP, such as wetlands and riparian
areas. Also, the agency wants farmers
to be able to retain their crop bases if
they leave CRP land under permanent
cover when the contracts expire. For
future contracts, USDA's proposal
includes a requirement that the soil loss
tolerance, or T level, be met if the land
is returned to cropping.
The commodity groups, 20 of which
have formed their own coalition to
create a farm bill proposal, recommend
that CRP land, if and when it comes
back into production, be required
simply to meet the same soil erosion
standards as other highly erodible land,
which in some cases is above the T
level. The commodity groups also state
that if 75 percent of a farm qualifies for
enrollment in the CPR, the entire farm
should qualify.
Conservation and environmental
groups generally support the T standard
for CRP land that might be returned to
crop production.
On new land going into the CRP, the
administration wants a cap of 40
million acres, while commodity and
environmental groups want the cap
raised to 50 million or more acres. All
groups generally want to extend CRP
authority through 1995.
Sodbuster/swampbuster and
conservation compliance. Positions on
these provisions vary widely. USDA
simply states that an amendment to the
Food Security Act of 1985 should
explicitly include highly erodible land
that is idled under annual commodity
programs: highly erodible land must be
fitted with a conservation program.
Commodity groups are interested in
maintaining compliance implementation
as it stands, with compliance violations
only applying to farms found out of
compliance. Currently, a tenant farmer
can lose farm program benefits for all
of his or her land even if only one
landlord blocks an application for
conservation plans. Landlords, on the
other hand, are protected by the 1985
act if one or more of several tenants
choose not to comply.
Environmental groups have an interest
in strengthening the provisions and are
calling for the toughening of some of
the provisions with special amendments.
One such amendment would extend
compliance requirements to dairy
program participants, while another
would require producer participants
who have been in commodity programs
January-February 1990 101
-------
for one year to remain in compliance
for five years to retain benefits.
Sustainable agriculture and planting
flexibility. A new program area,
sustainable agriculture has made its way
into USDA's proposals for this year's
farm bill. Some analysts believe current
farm policy discourages crop rotation,
which increases soil fertility, and that
more flexibility in planting may begin
to remedy this problem.
USDA's proposals would allow
farmers who plant soil-building crops
on part of their base acres to receive
deficiency payments for those acres,
provided they do not harvest the crop.
Producers would also be allowed to
plant and still receive deficiency
payments based on pre-1990 cropping
histories.
Commodity groups are interested in
allowing flexibility in crop production
without the loss of base or payment
yield and to guarantee deficiency
payments even when soil-building crops
are harvested. In addition, commodity
groups are calling for an organic title
that would establish a commission for
defining and certifying an organic crop
program and for an addition of an
integrated crop management section to
the Soil Conservation Service's
technical manual.
Environmental groups are strong on
sustainable agriculture. An amendment
to commodity programs that allows
flexible base acres and elimination of
biases against conservation crop
rotations is on their agenda. In
addition, environmental groups would
like to see USDA put greater emphasis
on education and technical assistance
for agricultural pollution source
reduction, sustainable agriculture, and
environmental protection. A call for the
reform of federal food grading standards
and an establishment of standards for
pesticide residues and organically grown
foods is also part of the environmental
agenda.
Wetlands. USDA calls for expanding
CRP eligibility criteria to include
existing cropped wetlands and restorable
cropped wetlands where restorable
wetland values are high and the cost of
restoration is not excessive. A new
addition to the program would provide
for permanent easesments on land under
contract and for an allocation of 10
percent of CRP acres that could be
covered through those easements.
Commodity groups would like to see
easements as an option and a voluntary
program to restore natural wetland
characteristics to previously drained
land. An amendment to the
swampbuster provision that would
exclude any land that produced a
Sharp
Seed Company
SELECT NATIVE GRASSES
SEEDS FOR IMPROVED RANGE
AND
DISTURBED-SITE REVEGEMTION
MAIN OFFICE:
HEALY, KS 67850 1-800-4-NATIVE
BRANCH OFFICES:
CLINTON, MO 64735 1-800-451-3779 AMARILLO, TX 79801 (806)-383-7772
GREELEY, CO 80631 (303)-356-4710
commodity for six years between 1975
and 1985 from the provision, with a
minimum size under swampbuster, is
another addition commodity groups also
would like to see considered.
Environmental groups prefer to see
the use of permanent or long-term
easements to protect valuable wetlands
and the restoration of wetlands
currently used for agriculture. In
addition, the act of drainage triggering
the provision with landowners and
giving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service the primary role in determining
violations are amendments that
environmental groups would like to see
considered for swampbuster.
Multiyear set-aside. Currently,
acreage that is idled under annual
programs results in lost opportunities to
protect natural resources. USDA
proposes that producers be required to
plant one-half of their acreage
conservation reserve to annual or
perennial cover crops each year. Crop
cost-sharing and grazing provisions
would be included in this proposal.
Commodity groups and environmental
groups appear to support this issue as
well. Environmental groups have also
put forth the option of compensating
producers who idle portions of program
acres for three years with approved
wildlife conservation practices.
Many sources say that creating an
agriculture that is less polluting and
making food safer will be the two
biggest areas of debate surrounding the
1990 farm bill. One particular point of
contention thus far has been the
proposal that producers keep records of
pesticide and nitrogen fertilizer
applications, including the amounts, the
crops applied to, and other patterns of
usage that producers say is too strict
and time-consuming. Organic labeling
laws are an issue as well, but the laws
are especially desired by farmers who
take seriously the extra work required
to produce organic farm products.
Commodity groups are asking for a
government commission to regulate
such a program, while environmentalists
are recommending strong national
standards for organic foods, with a
rigorous per-crop or per-farm
certification program.
Tenth CRP signup
not slated for 1990
Secretary of Agriculture Clayton
Yeutter told members of the National
Grain and Feed Association in January
that a Conservation Reserve Program
signup would not take place in February
of this year and will not likely occur
through the remainder of 1990.
For the past several years, CRP
signups have occurred in February and
-------
July or August. Nine signups have
taken place over the past four years.
Yeutter was quoted as saying that
when the signups do begin again past
promotion of highly erodible land
enrollment will likely give way to
enrolling land that is prone to other
environmental problems. He stated that
additional signups would be more likely
after the 1990 farm bill debate has
ended.
Yeutter said USDA is committed to
its goal of enrolling 40 million acres of
cropland in the CRP. To date, 34
million acres have been enrolled.
Kasten unveils farm
conservation program
U.S. Senator Bob Kasten (R-Wisc.) in
March unveiled a comprehensive farm
conservation package that he plans to
introduce and that he says will assist in
"protecting the future of America's
agricultural productivity and wildlife."
Kasten predicts his Farm Stewardship
Act of 1990 will help focus the entire
farm bill debate presently being
developed in Congress.
Based on four national resource
themes, which include soil, water,
wetlands, and wildlife, the bill contains
initiatives that would (1) create an
environmental stewardship program
designed to protect the most fragile
agricultural land; (2) rewrite the
swampbuster provision in the
Conservation Title of the Food Security
Act of 1985, increasing the protection of
wetlands; (3) create a new set-aside
program that will create permanent
cover for wildlife; (4) build whole-farm
conservation programs into the federal
agricultural assistance program, and (5)
enhance soil conservation programs as a
means of protecting the productive
capacity of farms and reducing water
pollution.
Kasten said the focus of his new
proposal allows farmers the option of
voluntarily enrolling in permanent
conservation easements and makes
economic uses of the land, such as
leasing for hunting, periodic haying, or
managed timber harvests, an additional
option.
Air pollution
damaging crops
Recent data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the
National Crop Loss Network provides
evidence that exposure to even moderate
levels of ozone pollution can reduce
crop yields by as much as 37 percent in
rural areas, a part of the country
previously thought of as not exceeding
federal air pollution standards, the Izaak
Walton League of America says.
Some commodities are more affected
than others, according to IWLA. Many
are highly altered with high levels of air
pollution, which experts say can mean
the difference between loss and
profitability, especially when combined
with drought and other crop-altering
natural effects.
Food supplies could be affected as
well, IWLA contends. In 1988,
Americans ate more food than what
they grew for the first time in history.
Grain reserves have been on the
decline, and wheat stocks are at their
lowest since 1974. With high production
needs at hand, some analysts are saying
that clean air legislation should be a
cause for concern among farmers as
well as urban residents.
As a result of air pollution, the data
show wheat yields in some areas have
declined by-as much as 37 percent;
cotton yields, 20 percent; and soybean
yields, up to 18 percent. Other crops,
such as fruits and vegetables, can also
be affected by ozone and air pollution,
IWLA says.
California pesticide
reporting goes into effect
California farmers who use pesticides
are now required to make a full
reporting of all of the pesticides they
use, according to the California
Department of Food and Agriculture.
"California is a leader in food safety
and now becomes the first in the nation
to require full reporting of pesticide
use," said Jim Wells, assistant chief,
Division of Pest Management,
California Department of Food and
Agriculture.
The new regulations, which went into
effect January 1, require growers to
report their use on a monthly basis to.
their county agricultural commissioner.
The report must detail the kind and
amount of pesticides used on specific
fields and on what crops. In addition,
all pesticide applied to golf courses,
roadsides, ditches, and rights-of-way
will be subject to reporting schedules.
Riparian enhancement
program undertaken
The Izaak Walton League of
America, Society for Range
Management, and other private
organizations and government agencies
will be banding together with the
Bureau of Land Management to sponsor
volunteer riparian enhancement projects
throughout the western states in 1990.
Projects will include replanting of
vegetation, development of erosion
control projects, replacing wildlife
RESHAPING THE BOTTOM LINE
On-farm Strategies for a Sustainable Agriculture
For:
* Soil & Water Conservation Officials
* Researchers
* Farmers
Based on the experience of more than 30
Midwest farmers & researchers. Compiled
by David Granatstein, Agronomist, the
Land Stewardship Project. The latest on:
* Nitrogen/manure management
* Controlling weeds & insects
* Improving pastures
* Alternative crops
-^2.
To order call (507) 523-3366 or write:
THE LAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT
P.O. Box 815, Attn. JS
180 Main Street, Lewiston, MN 55952
PRICE: $9.00/LSP Newsletter Subscribers
$10.00/Non-Subscribers
63 pages
-------
habitat, and the cleanup of old trash
and dump sites.
Riparian areas, which are vital and
abundant on public land, are those
fragile ecosystems that line the banks of
rivers, lakes, springs, and other water
bodies. They are an important natural
resource for land managers and often
have greater biological diversity than
neighboring ecosystems.
Other sponsors of the project include
the U.S. Forest Service, livestock and
mining associations, Re-Tree
International, Boy Scouts of America,
state wildlife departments, riparian and
watershed groups, and the University of
Nevada at Reno.
Research on climate
change proposed
Tracking changes in global climate is
no easy task. To undertake such a task,
however, the Bush Administration may
increase funding for land- and space-
based research programs in the fiscal
year 1991 budget, according to a recent
report by the Office of Science and
Technology Policy's Committee on
Earth Science.
The report, "Our Changing Planet:
The FY 1991 Global Change Research
Program," outlines an accelerated,
focused research strategy designed to
reduce key scientific uncertainties and
to develop more reliable production of
global change models. The research
would be a major component in the
development of the Bush
administration's creation of national and
international policies related to the
global climate change issue.
The committee's report outlines a
complete plan of earth- and space-based
missions centered on research, data-
gathering components, modeling
activities, and projections aimed at
realizing both short- and long-term
scientific and public policy benefits.
Water quality
projects planned
The U.S. Department of Agriculture
will provide assistance through the Soil
Conservation Service in 39 special
water quality project areas beginning
this year, USDA officials reported in
February.
Educational and technical assistance
will account for the bulk of the help
directed at farmers and ranchers willing
to develop conservation plans aimed at
reducing nonpoint-source pollution.
"The Soil Conservation Service will
be working closely with farmers and
ranchers to reduce pollution from
fertilizers, pesticides, animal wastes,
Scientific tests
prove it!
Agri-SC is the best solution
for soil management
The tests are in...and they
prove Agri-SC makes soil
more permeable and less
plastic... combats erosion,
compaction, hardpan and
drainage problems...and a
whole lot more.
Find out for yourself...for
your FREE information
packet, see your Agri-SC
dealer today.
FOUR.S
AGr
SER
P.O. Box 463, 2275 North St. Rd. 1
Bluffton, IN 46714
1-800-348-2608 / 219-824-5384
Indiana call collect
nutrients, and sediment," commented
Secretary of Agriculture Clayton
Yeutter.
Accelerated technical assistance on
the projects will be administered by
state and county offices of USDA's
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service.
SCS unveils
water plan
The Soil Conservation Service has
released a water quality plan as part of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
effort to focus on water quality
improvement projects. The five-year
plan, called the Water Quality and
Water Initiative, will initiate technical
assistance to prevent and improve water
quality problems.
The plan's creation was "in response
to the increasing national concern about
nonpoint-source impairment of water
resources," says Wilson Scaling in the
plan's introduction.
Four principal types of initiatives
in the plan include (1) program
applications, (2) technology
development, (3) information
dissemination, and (4) program
assessment.
Fisheries on the decline
The American Fisheries Society in
February issued a report on the status
of declining indigenous fish populations
in the United States.
The report, which documents the
health of lakes, rivers, and stream
systems, concludes: Despite a strong
Endangered Species Act, agencies are
unable to keep pace with the growing
list of endangered habitats threatened by
water use and development. In the
United States alone, the study says, 62
fish qualify for endangered species
status and another 84 species are
threatened.
The report also contains information
on the number of fish needing special
protection, of which an increase of 45
percent in the number of rare fish
occurred during the 1980s, the report
states. California and Nevada have the
most alarming record for an increase in
rare fish, with more than 40
documented in each state.
Carl Sullivan, AFS executive director,
stated, "Our conservation programs are
not working. We need an increased
commitment from political leaders in
our country toward funding for recovery
and habitat programs and overall
protection of major ecosystems. We
must protect biodiversity."
Problems with human pressures on
water use and lack of distribution to
aquatic habitats in need are cited as the
-------
prvmary cause of fish population
declines. Forty fish are known to have
recently become extinct as a result of
environmental abuse, AFS, contends.
Does best management
have water right?
Can soil conservation practices
contribute to groundwater
contamination? According to a study
being done at the University of
Washington-Pullman, it is possible.
"Soil erosion control measures
required by the Food Security Act
increase the amount of water that soaks
into the soil, and subsequently the
infiltration of groundwater
contaminants," says Larry King, a WSU
agricultural engineer. King is leading a
team of researchers trying to determine
to what degree best management
practices have an effect on groundwater
contamination and nonpoint-source
pollutants.
The research will focus on developing
a computer model to determine how
various farming practices affect water
quality and how implemented
conservation practices might improve or
reduce the quality of nearby water
sources.
"On the other hand, soil erosion
measures increase the amount of soil
organisms that break down
contaminants, which could reduce the
amount of residue headed for the water
sources," King said.
Does the Pentagon
need more land?
National Wildlife Federation President
Jay Hair says the U.S. Department of
Defense should take a closer look at its
need to acquire more public land for
military training.
Hair states that the department, which
is requesting an additional 3 million to
7 million acres of land, should appoint
an official who could handle such
requests, a liaison the release says does
not now exist.
Hair sent a letter to Defense
Secretary Dick Cheney outlining the
NWF perspective, which was prompted
by the requests for more land in
western states. NWF's main concern is
that wildlife habitat and other important
environmental resources could be
threatened on the land acquired.
Other notes . . .
A $1.3 million program to enhance
vital wildlife migration areas in the
Playa Lakes region of the southern
Great Plains is being established by a
joint organization of state wildlife
agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ducks Unlimited, Phillips
Petroleum Company, and the National
Wildlife Federation. The program will
last for five years and enhance breeding
grounds for waterfowl throughout the
South.... A savings of more than
$500,000 in chemical inputs was
demonstrated by Iowa State
University Extension's Integrated
Farm Management Demonstration
Program in 1989, with an average
reduction of 25 pounds of nitrogen per
acre on an enrolled 21,900 acres.
Phosphorus and potassium accounted
for another $56,000 in fertilizer savings
on 3,500 acres.... "Agriculture and the
Environment: A Study of Farmer's
Practices and Perceptions" has been
released by the American Farmland
Trust. The report, which outlines
current environmental practices being
used by farmers, is based on nearly 500
interviews with farmers across the
nation. The report is available for $3 in
summary form or $10 in book form,
from AFT, 1920 N Street N.W., Suite
400, Washington, D.C. 20036.... The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
has announced several amendments to
the labeled uses of atrazine, stating
that the herbicide must be more closely
controlled because of its threat to
groundwater sources.... An agreement
that could save certain species of
plants from extinction has been signed
Windy Weather?
Keep right on working with
our tough, new wind-resistant
measuring cable!
Cam-Line wind-resistant measuring
cable cuts through wind easily, and lets
you continue to work with accuracy. Light
weight and durable. Made of stainless
steel, nylon coated, 120 Ib. test. Patented
open reel winding device—300 ft. in 1 V4
minutes. Available in standard 300 ft.
lengths or from 100 ft. to 1,300 ft. Marked
at 1-foot intervals. Write todayl Special—
crop residue measuring cable.
CAM-LINE, CO.
Box 2286, Des Moines, Iowa 50310
(515) 263-0944
FREE CATALOG
FROM AGRi DRAIN CORPORATION
• Surface intakes
• Rat guards (call for FREE sample)
• Outlets (alum., steel, PVC)
• Steel & aluminum bands
• PVC fittings & junctions
• Hickenbottom products
• Transit repair & sales
• Head control stands
• Plumbing supplies
• Grade gauges
• Tile tape
• Drainage tile
• Hydrants
• Pipe
• Risers
• Shovels
TO RECEIVE THIS FREE CATALOG
CALL TOLL FREE
1-800-232-4742
Agri Drain Corp., Box 458, R. Rt. 2, Adair, Iowa 50002
-------
Seedlings
&
Transplants
for
The Most Particular Buyers
Write for List
All of the Popular Species
to choose from -
PINES—SPRUCES
FIRS
and others
PINE GROVE
NURSERY
R.D. 3, BOX 146
CLEARFIELD, PA 16830
FREE
24 PAGE CATALOG!
We Specialize in Hand-Operated Soil
Sampling Equipment for the
Soil & Water Conservation Society!
•Backsaver Handles
•Sampling Tubes with Liners
•Bucket Augers
•Complete Kits
Call or Write Today!
Clements Associates Inc
R.R.#1 Box 186 Newton, IA 50208
PH:1-800-247-6630 or 515-792-8285
by Bureau of Land Management
officials and representatives from the
Center for Plant Conservation. More
than 50 of the 700 plant types found on
BLM land are candidates for the
endangered species plant listing under
the Endangered Species Act.... A bill
extending federal protection to more
than 594,000 acres of Colorado public
land has been introduced in the
Congress by U.S. Senator Bill
Armstrong (R-Colo.). The bill would
designate the land as federal wilderness
and, according to Armstrong, "resolve
long-standing water right disputes
throughout the state".... Four new
areas covering 15.5 million acres are
now available for federal assistance
under the Resource Conservation and
Development (RC&D) Program.
Included are 19 counties in
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, and
West Virginia.... Planting certain
perennial grasses is a less costly and
more environmentally sound method
of reducing leafy spurge infestations
on rangeland says the University of
Wyoming Extension Service.... U.S.
farmland prices are continuing to rise
and will do so again this next year,
reports the American Society for Farm
Managers and Rural Appraisers. A four
percent gain is expected nationwide....
Giving its approval to use of the
Conservation Reserve Program for
the protection of groundwater and
wetlands, the National Governors'
Association Agriculture Committee said
it also approves of farm bill language
that gives farmers more planting
flexibility. Some commodity groups
have expressed reservations about such
flexibility, suggesting that it might
disrupt commodity production and
prices.... A long-term, joint venture
with the Soviet Union to publish
books and magazines has been
announced by Rodale Press of Emmaus,
Pennsylvania. The first publication
planned is a bimonthly farming
magazine called The New Fanner,
which will premier in the fall of
1990.... 3M Corporation was the
recipient of the National Wildlife
Federation's 1989 Corporate
Conservation Environmental Award.
3M was given the award for its
Pollution Prevention Pays Program,
developed to reduce hazardous waste
outputs.... No-Till Tiger Award
winners for 1989 include Bobby
Boggess of Murray, Kentucky, in the
dealer category; Dave Schertz,
Washington, D.C., in the research
category; and Don Clark,
Frederickstown, Ohio, in the applicator
category. The awards are sponsored by
the Conservation Technology
Information Center, Farm Chemicals
magazine, and ICI Americas Inc....
The 1990 fee for grazing livestock on
federal land will be $1.81 per animal
unit month, which is defined as one
cow and one calf; one horse; or five
sheep or goats per month, according to
a recent Bureau of Land Management
release.,.. National forest receipts
paid to states in 1989 in lieu of real
estate taxes will total $362 million.
The recipients include 41 states and
Puerto Rico. Actual fiscal receipts
collected from the sale and use of
national forest resources totalled $1.44
billion.... The Land Trust Exchange,
a national organization of private
land conservation organizations, has
changed its name to the Land Trust
Alliance to more accurately reflect the
new focus of the group that links
together private organizations working
on land issues.... Soil Conservation
Canada has established a Hall of
Fame recognition program for
Canadians who have contributed to the
cause of soil conservation. The first
inductees will be honored at the
organization's 1990 annual meeting. For
more information, write Soil
Conservation Canada, 275 Slater Street,
Suite 500, Ottawa, Ontario KIP 5H9....
Iowa State University's new Leopold
Center for Sustainable Agriculture
was dedicated in February. The center
is charged with identifying the
environmental and socioeconomic
impacts associated with agriculture and
implementing educational programs
through the ISU Extension Service....
Consumer food prices would rise by
45 percent and the food supply would
be cut in half if farmers could no
longer use pesticides and fertilizers,
according to a study sponsored by the
National Agricultural Chemicals
Association and The Fertilizer Institute.
Environmental pressures and
degradation would increase without
fertilizer use because of the additional
plantings needed to meet domestic food
demand, the study determined....
Protection and maintenance of
sensitive resources on public lands is
the goal of a memorandum of
understanding signed recently by the
Bureau of Land Management and The
Nature Conservancy. Under the
memorandum, the two parties will work
to identify and protect public land that
has high natural resource values,
including land of exceptional ecological
importance; areas of critical
environmental concern; and locations of
endangered or threatened species and
rare plant communities.
People
New appointees to the National
Public Lands Advisory Council of the
U.S. Department of the Interior's,
-------
Bureau of Land Management include
William Burnham, of Boise, Idaho;
Robert List, Reno, Nevada; Maitland
Sharpe, Arlington, Virginia; C. Chuck
Hawley, Anchorage, Alaska; and Mark
Murphy, Roswell, New Mexico. Two
reappointees include Calvin Black,
Blanding, Utah, and David Schaenen,
Billings, Montana.
Merle Doughty, former president of
the Missouri Association of Soil and
Water Conservation Districts was
recently awarded the National
Assocation of Conservation Districts
Special Service Award. •
Roger C. Dower has been named
director of the Climate Research
Program at the World Resources
Institute. He was formerly head of the
energy and environment program for
the Congressional Budget Office.
Elizabeth Estill has been named
director of the Recreation Management
Staff with the U.S. Forest Service. Prior
to her appointment, she was assistant
director of the same staff.
Cooper Evans, special assistant to
the president for agriculture, trade and
food assistance, has been awarded the
National Association of Conservation
Districts Special Service award.
Stuart Finley has received the
Communications Award from the
National Association of Conservation
Districts. Finley, a film-maker, is
director of the Lake Bancroft Watershed
Improvement District in Fairfax County,
Virginia.
Dale Hathaway, vice-president of
The Consultants International Group,
Washington, DC., has been named
visiting senior fellow at the National
Center for Food and Agricultural Policy,
Resources for the Future.
Patricia Kearney has been named
acting assistant secretary for natural
resources and the environment in the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Replacing Kearney as Secretary of
Agriculture Clayton Yeutter's chief of
staff is Gary Blumenthal.
Ariel E. Lugo has received the U.S.
Forest Service's Distinguished Science
Award. Lugo is director of USDA's
Forest Service Institute of Tropical
Forestry in Puerto Rico.
Fernando Cesar Mesquita, outgoing
head of the Brazilian Institute for
Environmental and Natural Resources,
has been named the recipient of the
National Wildlife Federation's
Conservation Service Citation for his
efforts to halt the destruction of.
Amazonian rain forests and for
establishment of "extractive reserves"
for Brazil's rubber trappers.
Rikki Mitman, a former advertising
agency professional, has joined the
National Association of Conservation
Districts as a marketing and member
COMPANY, INC.
3717 vera Cruz Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55422
Phone 612 537-6639
Native
Grass Drill
ACCURATELY PLANTS
ALL TYPES OF SEED
Fluffly native grasses
Tiny legumes
Medium sized wheat grasses
OPTIONS
TO SERVE YOU
Three point hitch
Acre meter
Hydraulic lift
Three seed boxes
DESIGNERS AND MANUFACTURERS
Of the trUQX NATIVE GRASS DRILL
New
from the
Soil and Water
Conservation Society
and
World Association
of Soil and Water
Conservation
To order write SWCS,
7515 N.E. Ankeny Road,
Ankeny, Iowa 50021
(515) 289-2331
Land Husbandry
A Framework for
Soil and Water
Conservation
ISBN 0-935734-20-1
64 pages, softbound, $12,
$10 for SWCS or WASWC members
The Seed Experts
Specializing in top quality
•-'- -$eeds,..Site specific, custom
collections and providing an
extensive inventory for fast
delivery.
Over 400 Species in Stock
• Wildflowers
• Native & Erosion
Control Grasses
• Native Shrubs
• Ground Covers
For Use In:
• Revegetation • Landscaping
• Erosion Control
CALL OR FAX FOR PRICES & AVAILABILITY
P.O. Box 1275 • Carpinteria, CA 93013
(805) 684-0436 FAX (805) 684-2798
-------
services specialist at the organization's
service center in League City, Texas.
James L. Plaster was given the
National Association of Conservation
District's Professional Service Award for
1990. Plaster is executive secretary for
the Alabama State Soil and Water
Conservation Committee,
{Catherine H. Reichelderfer has been
named a senior fellow at the National
Center for Food and Agriculture Policy,
Resources for the Future, in
Washington, D.C Reichelderfer was
previously with the Economic Research
Service.
Dale Robertson, chief of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Forest
Service, has been named River
Conservationist of the Year by
American Rivers, an organization
dedicated to river preservation.
Leo Stroosnijder, has been appointed
professor in soil and water conservation
for rainfed agriculture in the semiarid
tropics with the Department of
Irrigation and Soil and Water
Conservation, Wageningen Agricultural
University, The Netherlands.
Gilbert F. White, Boulder, Colorado,
was recently presented the Henry P.
Caul field Jr. Medal for exemplary
contributions to national water policy by
the American Water Resources
Association.
Past-president
Partain dies
Lloyd Partain, a former president of
the Soil and Water Conservation
Society, died March 10 in Pottstown,
Pennsylvania. He
was 84.
Partain retired in
1972 as the
assistant to the
administrator for
environmental
development with
the Soil Conserva-
tion Service. He
began work with
SCS as a public information officer in
1935 and served in a variety of
positions in both government and the
private sector prior to his retirement.
Partain was president of SWCS in
1949 and received the prestigious Hugh
Hammond Bennett Award in 1979.
Products
Turfctone, high density grid pavers
for reinforcing grassy areas are
available from Grinnel Concrete
Pavingstones, Inc. The pavers, which
are resistant to all weather and soil
conditions, allow water to permeate
their structure without breakage. For
more information, contact Grinnell
Sustainable Agriculture
University of Maine
B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. Programs
Interdisciplinary classes and research opportunities are
combined for the development of agricultural ecosystems that
are environmentally, economically, and socially sound.
The Sustainable Agriculture Program includes eight core courses
open to undergraduate and graduate students:
(1) Principles and Practices of Sustainable Agriculture
(2) Cropping Systems
(3) Sustainable Animal Production Systems
(4) Soil Organic Matter and Fertility
(5) Agricultural Pest Ecology and Management
(6) Engineering for a Sustainable Agriculture
(7) Integrated Farming Systems: Economics and Production Techniques
(8) Internship/Research Project
Q
For more information contact:
Dr. Matt Liebman, Sustainable Agriculture Program Coordinator
Deering Hall, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469
(207) 581-2939
Concrete Pavingstones, Inc., 482
Houses Corner Road, Sparta, New
Jersey 07871; (201) 383-9300.
A five-second printout speed,
combined with a 256 greytone scale
hardcopy, is available on Seikosha's
new VP-1500 Video Printer. The printer
is a direct-line thermal printer and is
ideal for image data base systems. For
more information, contact Seikosha
America Inc., 10 Industrial Avenue,
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430; (201)
327-7227.
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
JSWC classifieds: categories available include
positions open, positions wanted, assistant-
ships, upcoming meetings, call for papers, etc.
Rates: §2.50 per line, $25 minimum charge.
Deadline is 25th of month proceeding publi-
cation; for example, June 25 for the July-
August issue. Members placing positions
wanted ads receive 40 percent discount. Send
advertising copy with name, address, tele-
phone number, insertion instructions, and
billing address to JSWC, 7515 N.E. Ankeny
Road, Ankeny, Iowa 50021-9764.
Positions open
DIRECTOR OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY AND
ASSOCIATED SOCIETIES. The candidate should
have a background and experience, or be knowl-
edgeable, in agronomy, crop or soil science, or re-
lated fields. Applicants should have qualifications and
experience in communications, marketing, or public
relations. Experience in the use of computers and
working at the mid-management level are desirable.
The candidate must have at least a BS degree,
preferably an MS or equivalent in experience, and
those with a Ph.D. are encouraged to apply. Duties
include development of expanded membership
services; coordination of certification program;
leadership in career and professional development
activities; leadership for placement service program;
assistance in area of public responsibilities; and
assistance in fund raising activities. Position will be
located in Madison, Wisconsin. The closing date for
receipt of resumes is May 31,1990 or until a suitable
candidate is identified. Send nominations or resumes
including names and addresses of three references
to: R. F. Barnes, Executive Vice President, American
Society of Agronomy, 677 S. Segoe Road, Madison,
Wl 53711.
Plant materials
Evergreens, seedlings, transplants—potted,
balled, and burlapped, Christmas trees. Wide
selection for your soil conservation plantings. Write
for a free brochure. West Wisconsin Nursery and
Christmas Trees, RFD 4, Box 141, Sparta,
Wisconsin 54656. Telephone (608) 272-3171.
Bare Root nursery stock for conservation plant-
ings, windbreaks, Christmas trees, landscaping, fruit
rootstocks, and reforestation. Free wholesale catalog.
Lawyer Nursery, Inc., 950 Hwy. 200 West, Plains,
Montana 59859-9706; (406) 826-3881.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
'nvironmental Services
125 East Bethpage Road
Plainview. New York 11803
(516) 249-7600
Offices Located Nationwide^
-------
UPCOMING
May 15-16, Workshop on Coachella Canal
In-Place Lining Prototype
Palm Springs, California
Contact: The American Water Foundation,
P.O. Box 15577, Denver, Colorado 80215;
(303) 236-6960; FAX (303) 236-6763
May 16-18, Acid Mine Drainage:
Designing for Closure
Vancouver, British Columbia
Contact: Geological Association of Canada,
750 Jervis Street, Vancouver, British
Columbia VGE 2A9
May 29-31, National Grazinglands Weed
Management Conference
Omaha, Nebraska
Contact: North Central Nebraska RC&D
Office, P.O. Box 130, Bassett, Nebraska
68714; (402) 684-3346
June 2-7, Windbreaks and Agroforestry
Symposium
Ridgetown, Ontario
Contact: Continuing Education Department,
Ridgetown College, Ridgetown, Ontario,
NOP 2CO
June 7-9, The Environment: Global
Problems—Local Solutions
Hempstead, New York
Contact: Athelene A. Collins, Hofstra
Cultural Center, Hofstra University,
Hempstead, New York 11550;
(516) 560-5669
June 11-15, Design of Water Quality
Monitoring Networks
Fort Collins, Colorado
Contact: Thomas G. Sanders, Department
of Civil Engineering, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins 80523
June 14-17, World Agricultural Expo '90
New Zealand
Contact: Gordon Chesterman, P.O. Box
4172, Hamilton, New Zealand;
(071) 394-334; FAX (071) 391-731
June 16-19, The Land Trust Exchange
National Rally '90. "Strength through
Diversity"
Villanova, Pennsylvania
Contact: Land Trust Exchange, 1017 Duke
Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314;
(703) 683-7778
June 21-22, American Society for Testing
and Materials Symposium on Mapping
and Geographic Information Systems
San Francisco, California
Contact: ASTM, 1911 Rose Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103;
(215) 299-5400
June 25-28, Activated Sludge Process
Control
Fort Collins, Colorado
Contact: Thomas G. Sanders, Department
of Civil Engineering, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins 80523
June 25-29, International Symposium on
Tropical Hydrology and Fourth Carribean
Islands Water Resources Conference
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Contact: Dr. Rafael Mundz-Cadelario,
Water Resources Research Institute,
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaquez
Campus, P.O. Box 5000, Mayaquez,
Puerto Rico 00709-5000; (809) 832-4040
July 9-11, The 1990 Watershed
Symposium
Durango, Colorado
Contact: American Society of Civil
Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New York,
New York 10017-2398; (212) 705-7496 --•
July 17-19, Principles of Groundwater
Hydrology
Denver, Colorado
Contact: National Well Water Association,
6375 Riverside Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017;
"(614) 761-1711
July 29-August 1, Soil and Water
Conservation Society 45th Annual
Meeting
Salt Lake City, Utah
Contact: SWCS, 7515 N.E. Ankeny Rd.,
Ankeny, Iowa 50021-9764; (515) 289-2331;
FAX (515) 289-1227
July, Climatic Risk in Crop Production:
Models and Management
or the Semiarid Tropics and Subtropics
Brisbane, Australia
Contact: Vic Catchpoole, CSIRO Division of
Tropical Crops and Pastures, Cunningham
Laboratory, 306 Carmody Road, St. Lucia,
Old 4067, Australia
August 5-11, 19th World Congress of the
International Union of Forestry Research
Organization
Montreal, Quebec
Contact: D. K. Lemkay, IUFRO Montreal
Inc., P.O. Box 1990, Place d'Armes,
Montreal, Quebec H24 3L9
August 12-15, CONSERV '90: Water
Supply Solutions for the 1990s
Phoenix, Arizona
Contact: National Water Well Association,
6375 Riverside Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017;
(614) 761-1711
August 15-18, National Sustainable Ag
Forum
Lincoln, Nebraska
Contact: University of Nebraska, 211
Agricultural Hall, Lincoln, Nebraska
68583-0703; (402) 472-2966; FAX
(402) 472-2759
September 9-12, Environmental
Management: Challenges, Opportunities,
Strategies
Boston, Maine
Contact: American Society for Public
Administration, 1120 G Street, NW, Suite
500, Washington, D.C. 20005;
(202) 393-7878; FAX (202) 638-4952.
September 10-13, First International
Symposium on Oil and Gas Waste
Management Practices
New Orleans, Louisiana
Contact: Mike Fitzpatrick, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, OS-323
Office of Solid Waste, 401 M St. SW,
Washington, D.C. 20460; (202) 475-6783
September 24-27, National Conference
on Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils
Amherst, Massachusetts
Contact: Paul T. Kostecki, Environmental
Health & Sciences, Division of Public
Health, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, 01003; (413) 545-2934
October 6-11, Clay Minerals Society, 27th
Annual Meeting
Columbia, Missouri
Contact: W. D. Johns, Department of
Geology, University of Missouri, Columbia,
Missouri 65211; (314) 882-3785
October 7-9, Growing on the Delaware
White Haven, Pennsylvania
Contact: WRA/DRB, Box 867, Davis Road,
Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19481;
(215) 783-0634.
October 21-24, The Coastal Society 12th
International Conference
San Antonio, Texas
Contact: William M. Wise, Marine Sciences
Research Center, State University of New
York, Stony Brook, 11794-5000;
(416) 632-8656
November 8-9, Third National Pesticide
Research Conference
Richmond, Virginia
Contact: Diana L. Weigmann, Virginia
Water Resources Research Center, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University,
617 North Main Street, Blacksburg
24060-3397; (703) 231-5624; FAX:
(703) 231-6673
January-February 1990 109
-------
BOOKS, ETC.
Alternative Agriculture. By Committee
on the Role of Alternative Farming
Methods, Board on Agriculture,
National Research Council. 449 pp.,
1989. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C. 20418. $19.95,
paper; $29.95 hardbound.
Alternative fanning techniques, such
as fewer off-farm chemical inputs; crop
rotations to reduce the use of
pesticides; and, in general, much
greater sensitivity to environmental or
soil damage, are highlighted in a report
of % special five-year study carried out
under the auspices of the National
Research Council by a 17-member
committee chaired by John Pesek, Iowa
State University. The committee's
report. Alternative Agriculture, has been
strongly endorsed by the Board on
Agriculture, National Research Council.
The board applauds the several
alternative farming methods, which
emphasize biological relationships, such
as those between the predator and
plants, and natural processes, such as
nitrogen fixation, and rejects the so-
called conventional agriculture, which,
while being dramatically effective in
increasing yields, has gained these
increased yields at a high cost to
society and has led to serious losses in
quality of the country's soil and water
resources.
The committee's report has not won
accolades in all corners of the country.
An independent environmental think
tank. Resources for the Future, pointed
out that low-pesticide farming may be
less profitable and less ecologically
beneficial than the NRC report
suggests: "For the general run of
farmers in the United States at the
present time, alternative agriculture is
not economically competitive. Although
alternative agriculture methods may
minimize pesticide pollution, they also
place other strains on the environment,
and in addition are financially risky."
I see no problem with any of the
alternative agriculture goals; in fact,
these are part and parcel of so-called
conventional farming systems when
properly managed:
*• Priorizc nitrogen fixation, nutrient
recycling, and pest-predator
relationships.
>• Discourage inputs that have the
greatest potential to harm the
environment, the health of farmers, and
the quality of food produced.
>• Encourge greater use of biological
and genetic potential of plant and
animal species.
>• Support cropping patterns and
systems that ensure long-term
sustainability and at the same time
maintain production levels.
>• Encourage much increased
awareness of the need for conservation
of soil, water, energy, and biological
resources in a profitable and efficient
cropping system.
A wide range of farming systems and
practices are envisaged. The prudent
use of agricultural chemicals is
encouraged, as well as organic farming.
Where appropriate, low-input,
sustainable forming systems are
included. High priority is given to
diversified farming systems; they are
generally more stable and resilient and
also reduce risk, provide a hedge
against drought and other natural
factors, and should give the farmer
greater leverage to respond to market
place gyrations.
In contrast to the more highly
focused organic farming systems or low-
input, sustainable agriculture, the
alternative farming proposal recognizes
the need for farming systems to adapt
specifically to the soil and climatic
conditions prevailing in any one farming
region.
The report notes that a wide range of
government policies significantly
influence farmers choices and generally
work against environmentally neutral
practices and the adoption of certain
alternative farming systems. I must add
here that agricultural policies in Canada
have only very rarely been conservation
neutral, and I know of no instance
when they have been conservation
positive.
The report recommends that serious
consideration be given to regulatory
change to ensure that more rapid
progress can be made toward the
development of safer guidelines for use
of agricultural chemicals. In particular,
greater emphasis must be placed on
attaining a balance between the cost of
health and environmental consequences
of each pesticide and its benefits to
production agriculture. Reference is
rightly made to the Delaney paradox,
an NRC report published in 1987 that
included detailed recommendation for a
consistent policy of regulating pesticide
use.
The study strongly suggests that a
systems approach to research is
essential. Agricultural research to date
has been a major pillar supporting crop
production in the United States.
Regrettably, on-farm research to
evaluate interactions between crop
rotations, tillage methods, pest control,
and nutrient cycling has been almost
nonexistent. Farmers need to understand
these interactions. Developmental
research and extension have not focused
on integrating new knowledge into
practical farming systems. The proposed
alternative farming systems, rather than
rejecting modern agricultural science as
organic farmers often tend to do or
leaving a major portion of the new
technology on the shelf as low-input,
sustainable agriculture suggests,
strongly recommends that the fullest
use of new technology must be
encouraged through the integration of
the new technology into current
conventional agriculture. By doing so in
a system mode, the study forecasts less
use of agricultural chemicals, thus
lowering input costs and minimizing the
risk of environmental damage.
The report repeatedly underscores the
following: Alternative farming practices,
to be successful, require better trained
labor, much improved management
skills, and more detailed and timely
information relating both to production
and marketing aspects of farming. My
experience would suggest that those
farmers in western Canada who have
seriously attempted to adopt
"sustainable" farming methods and have
failed did so because they did not have
a sufficient understanding of
agricultural science to enable them to
integrate, without unacceptably high
risk, the new (or alternative) technology
into a system compatible with their
soils, the prevailing climate, and
available on-farm resources.
The committee expresses concern that
the retirement and attrition of scientists
capable of bridging the gap between the
laboratory and the field will materially
reduce the country's ability to quickly
apply new alternative agriculture
technology at the farm gate. Few young
110 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
scientists are pursuing careers in
scientific agriculture, let alone
participating in interdisciplinary or
systems research. It places a major part
of the blame on higher education
institutions, the peer review system, and
funding. I would counter this statement
by pointing out that educational
institutions, particularly colleges of
agriculture, have been and are turning
out scientists who are better qualified
than ever to meet the needs of the
agriculture industry, but employers and
funding agencies have not recognized
the value of interdisciplinary or systems
research and development, other than
giving it a kind of motherhood support.
In particular, here in western Canada,
there is not strong support for much-
needed on-farm systems research.
The report strongly recommends the
conduct of on-farm research and
developmental, field-scale farming-
systems studies, which are regionally
focused, multidisciplinary, long-term,
and have high visibility. Substantial new
funding—the report recommends at
least $40 million—should be added to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
competitive grants program. Priority in
this program is to be given to basic as
well as applied multidisciplinary
research. Suggested priorities for the
competitive program include nutrient
cycling research related to increasing
efficiency of nutrient use, the role of
alternative tillage systems in weed
control, new pest strategies, the study
of the interaction between crop rotation
and environmental quality, the
development of improved crop and
livestock species through genetic
engineering, improved farm equipment
design, the economics of alternative
farming systems, and the development
of computer software systems to aid
farmers in making management
decisions.
The final section of the report is
intended to provide insight into how the
real world works. This is perhaps the
weakest portion of the report. With the
exception of a large cattle ranch in
Colorado, there are no unirrigated
examples of successful alternative
farming throughout the very large
semiarid and arid regions of the
country. Perhaps none exist; "low
input" and "organic" agriculture
dominated the farming systems in
western Canadian agriculture for the
first 50 to 75 years, and during this
time extensive soil degradation
occurred. Thousands of tons of essential
plant nutrients, in particular nitrogen
and phosphorus, which came from rich
soil reserves, were exported. Erosion by
wind and water, salinization, and
structural breakdown are today
estimated to cost farmers in the prairie
region about $1 billion per year in lost
annual production. Are their
alternatives to the current iarming
systems in the Great Plains region of
North America? Certainly, the kind of
alternative farming systems suggested in
the NRC report are not only
unsustainable in the semiarid Great
Plains region, but also will lead to
further accelerated resource
degradation.
I am convinced that the first
generations of farming here on the
prairies and perhaps also throughout
North America must be replaced by a
new generation of sustainable farming
systems. Note that I do not use the
term alternative farming systems. We
can and will leverage our way into these
new systems with considerable
optimism because much of the
technology is now on the shelf. The
farmer or, for that matter, the
policymakers who continue to operate
on the 20th century format are indeed
at risk and will likely be a casualty as
agriculture in North America moves
into the 21st century. Alternative
Agriculture provides some insight into
the kinds of changes that may take
place. The most noteworthy chapter is
that entitled "Research and Science,"
and this is recommended reading for
all.—D. A. Rennie, College of
Agriculture, University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, S7N OWO.
The Greening of Aid: Sustainable
Livelihoods in Practice. Edited by
Czech Conroy and Miles Litvinoff.
302 pp., 1988. Earthscan
Publications, London, England
WC1H ODD. £8.95 + £1 postage.
The International Institute for
Environment and Development (TIED)
has a good record of stimulating ideas,
one of which is reported in The
Greening of Aid: Sustainable
Livelihoods in Practice. This book is
based on the papers produced for the
"Only One Earth Conference on
Sustainable Development," organized by
IIED at Regent's College, London, in
April, 1987.
Sustainable development was the
central theme of the conference and
each of the commissioned case studies
reported at the conference was chosen
for its relevance to the issue of
sustainability. The book consists of 34
such studies arranged in six groups,
with a rapporteur's overview and
summary of the papers in each group.
The groups are as follows: "Sustainable
Rural Livelihoods: A Key Strategy for
People, Environment, and
Development," rapporteur Robert
Chambers; "Sustainable Rural
Livelihoods: Enhanced Resources
Productivity," rapporteur John Michael
Kramer; "Mass Production or
Production by the Masses?" rapporteur
Marilyn Carr; "Planning Techniques for
Sustainable Development," rapporteur
Colin P. Rees; "Human and
Institutional Development," rapporteur
David Butcher; and "Human
Settlements," rapporteur Yves Cabannes.
The selection of experienced
specialists as the authors and
rapporteurs resulted in a high standard
of technical writing, which has been
skillfully edited into book format. The
Greening of Aid: Sustainable
Livelihoods in Practice deserves to be
read by everyone concerned about the
environmental issues of development.—
N. W. Hudson, International Center for
Soil Conservation Information,
Ampthill, England.
The Small Town Planning Handbook.
By Thomas L. Daniels and John W.
Keller with Mark B. Lapping. 167
pp., 1988. The American Planning
Association, Chicago, Illinois 60637.
The Small Town Planning Handbook
is of special value to residents in small
towns or rural areas who have had no
previous exposure to the activity called
community planning. The book is
divided into two parts. The first,
"Creating a Town Plan," consumes
more than half of the book and
describes in great detail what data are
needed and should go into formulation
of a town plan. The presentation is
January-February 1990 111
-------
rather pedantic and uses newly invented
terminology, such as "miniplan" and
distinct from "minor plan" and "major
plan." The extensive listings of
statistical data needed for making a plan
may appeal to students of community
planning, but they may also discourage
Ihe typical citizen-planner.
Part two deals with "Putting the
Town Plan Into Action." The subjects of
zoning, subdivision regulations, and
capital improvements programs are
covered in detail. Most of the advice
given is in good, understandable
language, adhering to sound planning
principles that most professional
planners would support. I offer one
note of caution however. I would not
support the recommendation to
negotiate "density bonuses" with
developers to improve their esthetic
design. Zoning is correctly described as
a "police power," and varienaces from
the standards should not be "for sale."
The emphasis given to plan
implementation is important. The
authors provide a realistic argument that
plans do not implement themselves. It
takes a determined, continuing effort on
the part of a broad array of citizens to
go from a plan on paper to actual
accomplishments on the ground. That
point is well made in the book and
provides the most important reason for
putting it in the category of
recommended reading.—WARREN T.
ZITZMANN, mils Church, Virginia.
General
Deivlopment and the National Interest:
US. Econonmtc Assistance into the
2/sf Century. 158 pp., illus., bibliog.,
1989. Agency for International
Development, Washington, D.C.
20523.
Economic Instruments for Environmental
Protection. 132 pp., refs., app., 1989.
OECD Publications and Information
Center, Washington, D.C.
20036-4095. $23.50.
Here to Stay: A Resource Kit on
Environmentally Sustainable
Development. 1989. DEC Book
Distribution, Toronto, Ont. M5T
1R4. $25.00, plus 10%
postage/handling; 20% outside
Canada.
Ttie Complete Guide to Environmental
Careers. 350 pp., illus., bibliog.,
index, 1989. The CHIP Fund,
Boston, Mass. 02111-1907. $24.95,
cloth; $14.95, paper.
Sustainable Development: A Guide to
Our Common Future. By Gregory G.
Lebel and Hal Kane. 77 pp., 1989.
Oxford University Press, New York,
N.Y. 10016.
Communities at Risk: Environmental
in Rural America. By Albert
J. Fritsch. 40pp., illus., 1989.
Renew America, Washington, D.C.
20036.
Toward a Common Future: A Report on
Sustainable Development and Its
Implications for Canada. By Michael
Keating. 47 pp., illus., refs., 1989.
Environment Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario.
Natural Resources for the 21st Century.
Edited by R. Neil Sampson and *
Dwight Hair. 349 pp., illus., refs.,
index, 1990. Island Press,
Washington, D.C. 20009.
Economics of Natural Resources and
the Environment. By David W.
Pearce and R. Kerry Turner. 378 pp.,
illus., refs., index, 1990. The Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
Md. 21211. $42.50, hardcover; $19.50,
paperback.
The Pilgrim and the Cowboy. By Paul
McKay, 214 pp., 1989. McGraw-Hill
Publishing Co., New %rk, N.Y.
10011. $18.95
Agriculture
Selenium in Agriculture and the
Environment. L. W. Taylor, editor.
233 pp., 1989. Book Order
Department, SSSA, ASA
Headquarters, 677 South Segoe Rd.,
Madison, Wise. 57311. $24.00 $2.40
per book for postage outside the
United States.
Acreage Allocated to Conservation
Tillage Practices in Mississippi,
1985-1988. By Stan R. Spurlock and
Sukant K. Misra. 9 pp., illus., tbls.,
1989. Bull. 957. Mississippi
Agricultural and Forestry Experiment
Station, Mississippi State, 39762.
World Agriculture: Factors Influencing
Trends in World Agricultural
Production and Trade. 106 pp., illus.,
tbls., app., 1989. GAO/RCED-89-1.
U.S. General Accounting Office,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20877.
Choices for the Heartland: Alternative
Directions in Biotechnology and
Implications for Family Farming,
Rural Communities and the
Environment. By Chuck Hassebrook
and Gabriel Hegyes. 113 pp., 1989.
Center for Rural Affairs, Walthill,
Nebr. 68067.
Resource Audit and Planning Guide for
Integrated Farm Management. 1989.
Center for Rural Affairs, Hartington,
Nebr. 68739. $5.00.
Risks, Challenges and Opportunities:
Agriculture, Resources and Growth in
a Changing Central Valley. 95 pp.,
illus., 1989. American Farmland
Trust, San Francisco, Calif. 94107.
Influence of Soil Moisture on Herbicide
Performance. By Joe E. Street and
Theodore C. Miller. 3 pp., illus.,
refs., 1989. Vol. 14, No. 20.
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry
Experiment Station, Mississippi
State, 39762.
Alternative Agriculture. 448 pp., illus.,
refs., tbls., gloss., index, 1989.
National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C. 20418. $19.95.
Strategies for Alternative Crop
Development: Case Histories. 72 pp.,
1989. Educational Development
System, University of Minnesota, St.
Paul, 55108. $10.00.
The Farm Policy Game Play by Play.
By Lauren Soth. 277 pp., 1990. Iowa
State University Press, Ames, 50010.
$29.95, plus $2.00 for postage for
first copy, 75 cents for each
additional copy.
Yield and Quality of Winter Annual
Forages. By Julio C. Medal and John
A. Balasko. 35 pp., illus., refs.,
tbls., 1989. Bull. 701. West Virginia
University Agricultural and Forestry
Experiment Station, Morgantown,
26506-6125.
Soils
The Extent of Soil Erosion. Topics in
Applied Resource Management in the
Tropics. Vol. 1. 201 pp., illus., tbls.,
1989. DITSL-Topics, P.O. Box 1652,
Steinster. 19, D-3430 Witzenhausen 1,
West Germany. $38.00.
Soils and Their Management: A Sino-
Euopean Perspective. Edited by E.
Maltby and T. Wollersen.
Proceedings, Workshop jointly
organized by the People's Republic of
China and the EEC, China, April
1988. Elsevier Science Publishing
Co., Inc., New York, N.Y. 10159.
$86.50.
Water
Channelized Rivers: Perspectives
for Environmental Management. By
Andrew Brookes. 326 pp., illus.,
refs., app., indxes, 1989. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., Somerset, NJ.
08875-1272. $79.95.
Law of Water Rights and Resources. By
A. Dan Tarlock. Tbls., index, 1988.
Clark Boardman Co., Ltd., New
York, N.Y. 10014. $95.00.
Water Resource Management: Integrated
Policies. 200 pp., app., bibliog.,
1989. OECD Publications and
Information Centre, Washington, D.C.
20036-4095. $24.00.
Water for Agriculture: Facing the
Limits. By Sandra Postel. 54 pp.,
illus., refs., 1989. Worldwatch Paper
93. Worldwatch Institute, Washington,
D.C. 20036. $4.00.
The Water Encyclopedia (2nd edition).
By Frits van der Leeden, Fred L.
Troise, and David Keith Todd. 800
pp., illus., tbls., maps, 1990. Water
Information Center, Inc., Plainview,
NY. 11803. $125, plus $3 for postage
and handling.
112 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
Rivers at Risk: Citizen's Guide to
Hydropower. By John D. Echeverria,
Pope Barrow, and Richard Roos-
Collins. 220 pp., 1990. Island Press,
Covelo, Calif., 95428. $29.95, cloth;
$17.95, paper, plus $2.00 for shipping
and handling.
Markets for Federal Water: Subsidies,
Property Rights, and the Bureau of
Reclamation. By Richard W. Wahl.
308 pp., illus., refs., this., app.,
index, 1989. Resources for the Future,
Baltimore, Md. 21211. $30.00, plus
$3.00 postage and handling.
Land Use
Report on the Seminar on Operational
Use of Satellite Images in
Development Planning. By Qalabane
K. Chakela. 28 pp., plus apps., 1988.
Report No. 15. SADCC Coordinator,
Soil and Water Conservation and
Utilization, Ministry of Agriculture
and Marketing, P.O. Box 24, Maseru
100, Lesotho.
Environmental Policy Benefits: Monetary
Valuation. 84 pp., illus., bibliog.,
1989. OECD Publications,
Washington, D.C. 20036-4095. $20.00.
Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
76 pp., plus illus., refs., gloss.,
apps., 1989. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
20402.
Saving America's Countryside: A Guide
to Rural Conservation. By Samuel N.
Stokes, A. Elizabeth Watson,
Genevieve P. Keller, and J. Timothy
Keller. 320 pp., appx., illus., maps,
1989. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, Md. 21211. $42.50,
hardcover; $16.95, paperback.
Range Development and Improvements
(third edition). By John F. Vallentine.
524 pp., illus., refs., app., indexes,
1989. Academic Press, Inc., Troy,
68379. $45.00.
The Evolving Use and Management of
the Nation's Forests, Grasslands,
Croplands, and Related Resources.
By John Fedkiw. 66 pp., illus., refs.,
1989. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RM-175. Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Fort Collins,
Colo. 80526.
Situations and Strategies in American
Land-Use Planning. By Thomas K.
Rudel. 166 pp., illus., refs., this.,
apps., index, 1989. Cambridge
University Press, New York, N.Y.
10022. $37.50.
Land Use Transitions in Urbanizing
Areas: Research and Information
Needs. Proceedings, Workshop,
Economic Research Service, USDA,
and The Farm Foundation. Edited by
Ralph E. Heimlich. 217 pp., illus.,
refs., 1989. Economic Research
Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.
20005-4788.
Land Use Decisions: Issues in the
Evolution of Wisconsin's County
Forest Program 1963-1985. By Duncan
A. Harkin. 98 pp., illus., apps.,
1988. University of Wisconsin-
Extension, Madison, 53706.
Are There Any Public Lands for Sale?
16 pp., 1989. Superintendent of
Documents, Washington D.C.
20402-9325. $1.00.
Forests
The Status of Forest Management
Research in the United States. By
Donald G. Hodges, Pamela J. Jakes,
and Frederick W. Cubbage. 16 pp.,
illus., refs., 1988. Gen. Tech. Rpt.
NC-126. Forest Service, North
Central Forest Experiment Station, St.
Paul, Minn. 55108.
Forestry Sector Intervention: The
Impacts of Public Regulation on
Social Welfare. By Roy G. Boyd and
William F. Hyde. 295 pp., illus.,
tbls., indexes, 1989. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, 50010.
$34.95.
Seedling Nutrition and Irrigation. The
Container Tree Nursery Manual,
Volume Four. By Thomas D. Landis,
Richard W. Tinus, Stephen E.
McDonald, and James P. Barnett. 119
pp., illus., refs., index, 1989.
Agriculture Handbk. 674. U.S. Forest
Service, Washington, D.C.
Seventh Central Hardwood Forest
Conference. Proc., Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale, March 5-8,
1989. Edited by George Rink and
Carl A. Budelsky. 313 pp., illus.,
1989. Gen. Tech. Rpt. NC-132. North
Central Forest Experiment Station,
U.S. Forest Service, St. Paul, Minn.
55108.
How to Save Trees During
Construction. 8 pp., illus., 1989.
National Arbor Day Foundation,
Nebraska City, Nebr. 68410.
Discovering New Knowledge About
Trees and Forests. 114 pp., illus.,
1989. Gen. Tech. Rpt. NC-135. North
Central Forest Experiment Station,
Forest Service, St. Paul, Minn. 55108.
Shading Our Cities: A Resource Guide
for Urban and Community Forests.
Edited by Gary Moll, and Sara
Ebenreck. 333 pp., 1989. American
Forestry Association, Washington,
D.C. 20013. $19.95, paperback;
$34.95, cloth, plus $2.00 shipping.
Site Index Curves for Forest Tree
Species in the Eastern United States.
By Willard H. Carmean, Jerold T.
Hahn, and Rodney D. Jacobs. 142
pp., illus., refs., apps., index, 1989.
Gen. Tech. Rpt. NC-128. North
Central Forest Experiment Station,
This new
book from
SWCS is essential
reading for agricultural
researchers, natural resource
conservationists, policymakers,
and others interested in creating
an economically and environ-
mentally sustainable agriculture
worldwide.
A timely piece, Sustainable
Agricultural Systems brings to
the forefront the many complex
issues surrounding the develop-
ment of sustainable farming
systems. Included are a concise
series of chapters on low-input
systems, pest management,
pollution control, and the
economic and environmental
components of sustainable
agriculture, by an international
collection of authors.
SUSTAINABLE
AGRICULTURAL
SYSTEMS
Edited by
dive A, Edwards, Rattan Lai,
Patrick Madden, Robert H. Miller
and Gar House
696 pages. ISBN 0-935734-21-X
$36.00 members;
$40.00 non-members.
To order, write:
Soil and Water Conservation Society
7515 N.E. Ankeny Road
Ankeny, Iowa 50021-9764;
or call: 1-800-THE-SOIL.
-------
Forest Service, St. Paul, Minn. 55108.
Multiple-Use Management: The
Economics of Public Fbrestlands. By
Michael D. Bowes and John V.
Krutilla. 357 pp., illus., this., app.,
index, 1989. Resources for the Future,
Baltimore, Md. 21211 $40.00.
\V~ildlife, Forests, and Forestry:
Principles of Managing Forests for
Biological Diversity. By Malcolm L.
Hunter, Jr. 370 pp., illus., refs.,
apps., indexes, 1990. Prentice Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 07632.
Law, Legislation and Politics
Zoning and the American Dream:
Promises Still to Keep. Charles M.
Haar and Jerold S. Kayden, editors.
386 pp., illus., app., index, 1989.
American Planning Association,
Washington, D.C. 20036.
Recreation
Research Issues Related to Recreation
Enterprises for the Private
Landmvtier. By Dale Colyer and
Dennis K. Smith. 14 pp., refs., 1990.
R. M. Publications No. 90/01. West
Virginia University Extension Service,
Morgantown, 26506-6125.
Research Issues: Related to Recreational
Access. By Lawrence w. Libby. 13
pp., refs., no date. R.D. No. 747.
West Virgnia University Extension
Service, Morgantown, 26506-6125.
Reclamation
Surface Coal Mining Reclamation: 10
Years of Progress, 1977-1987. 50 pp.,
illus., 1987. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20401.
$4.25.
Surface Mining: Operation of the
Applicant Violator System Can be
Improved. GAO/AFMD-89-31, 1989.
U.S. General Accounting Office,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20877. First five
copies free, additional copies are
$2.00 each.
Waste Management
Wastes in Marine Environments. 312
pp., illus., ref., index, 1987. U.S.
Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402. $13.00.
Hazardous Waste Site Management:
Water Quality Issues. Report on a
Colloquium sponsored by the Water
Science and Technology Board. 212
pp., illus., apps., index, 1988.
National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C. 20418. $24.50.
Treatment of Hazardous Waste
Leachate: Unit Operations and Costs.
By J. L. McArdle, M. M. Arozarena,
and W. E. Gallagher. Ill pp., illus.,
refs., 1988. Noyes Publications. Park
Ridge, N.J. 07656. $36.00.
Hazardous Waste Site Remediation: The
Engineer's Perspective. 422 pp.,
illus., refs., bibliog., index, 1988. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, N.Y.
10003. $38.95.
Waste: Choices for Communities.
Concern, Inc., Washington, D.C.
20009^. $3.00.
The Role of Waste Minimization (volume
1). By Domenic Forcella. 85 pp.,
apps., 1989. National Governors'
Association, 444 North Capitol
Street, Suite 250, Washington, D.C.
20001-1572. $15.00.
Pesticides
MSDS Reference for Crop Protection
Chemicals. 1,412 pp., plus updates.
John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
10158. $145, available by subscription.
The Standard Pesticide User's Guide.
By Bert L. Bohmont. 498 pp., illus.,
gloss., apps., indexes, 1990. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 07632.
For Our Kids' Sake: How to Protect
Your Child Against Pesticides in
Food. By Anne Witte Garland. 87
pp., illus., refs., gloss., 1989. Sierra
Club Books, San Francisco, Calif.
94109. $6.95 plus $3.00 for postage
and handling.
CONSERVATION
FARMING
ON STEEP LANDS
A sound, viable agricultural industry in developing
countries relies heavily on a stable natural re-
source base. Efforts to reduce or eliminate land
degradation are requisite to maintenance and improve-
ment in the productive capacity of soil resources.
Such efforts in the past have produced mixed results.
Some have succeeded; others have failed. In most cases,
a number of common principles account for that suc-
cess or failure.
Conservation Farming on Steep Lands identifies these
common principles and suggests how they might be
applied in agricultural development projects to increase
the chances of success. A prominent theme throughout
the book is the need to view the conservation of soil
and water resources as an integral part of agricultural
development efforts and not to look on conservation
as something apart from agriculture to be undertaken
as time and money permit.
296 pages, hardbound, ISBN 0-935734-19-8
$25.00 per copy; $22.00for SWCS or WASWCmembers,
postpaid (overseas airmail extra)
Soil and Water Conservation Society
7515 Northeast Ankeny Road
Ankeny, Iowa 50021-9764
(515) 289-2331
SOILG
AND WATER
CONSERVATION
SOCIETY
-------
RESEARCH REPORTS
Nitrogen status of corn after
alfalfa in 29 Iowa fields
N. M. EI-Hout and A. M. Blackmer
ABSTRACT: Excessive applications of nitrogen (N) fertilizer can occur when farmers do
not give adequate credits for N supplied by legumes. Newly developed soil and tissue tests
were used to evaluate the N status of29 fields of first-year corn (Zea mays L.) after alfalfa
(Medicago sativa L.) in northeastern Iowa in 1987. Unlike other tests that have been used,
these tests have the ability to characterize degrees ofN excess. The tests showed that most
farmers had applied more N fertilizer than needed to attain maximum yields. The soil test
showed that 25 of the 29 fields had nitrate concentrations greater than optimal concentra-
tions. Seventeen of the 29 fields had at least twice the critical concentration of soil nitrate,
and 6 of the 29 fields had at least three times this concentration. The tissue test supported
these findings. Most farmers could have increased their profits and decreased the poten-
tial for groundwater contamination if they had given more appropriate credits for N sup-
plied by the alfalfa. Soil and tissue tests that can characterize degrees ofN excess during
corn production can be used to demonstrate the economic and environmental benefits that
can be obtained by giving these credits.
INPUTS of nitrogen (N) are essential for
profitable agricultural systems. Rotations
with legumes provided the major N input
into agriculture until the advent of commer-
cially fixed N fertilizers, which have pro-
vided abundant supplies of relatively inex-
pensive N in recent decades. These fertil-
izers essentially have eliminated the problem
of N deficiency during crop production and
have helped to provide the abundance of
food and fiber currently enjoyed by devel-
oped nations. There is mounting concern,
however, that large N inputs for crop pro-
duction may increase the concentration of
nitrate in groundwater (2, 6, 8, 11). Espe-
cially in areas where concentrations of ni-
trate in groundwater are increasing, there is
need for greater efforts to avoid applying ex-
cessive amounts of fertilizer N.
It is difficult to define what rates of fer-
tilization are excessive because such a defi-
nition often requires value judgments con-
cerning the relative importance of agricul-
tural productivity and groundwater quality.
However, fertilization rates higher than those
N. M. El-Hout is a postdoctoral research associate
and A. M, Blackmer is an associate professor in the
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University,
Ames, Iowa SOW. Journal Paper no. J-13358ofthe
Iowa Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment
Station, Ames; project 2741. This project was sup-
ported in part by the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources through Grant No. 87-6254-02.
needed to attain maximum yields can be
considered excessive without making value
judgments. Because excessive fertilization
decreases the profitability of crop produc-
tion, there are economic as well as environ-
mental incentives for avoiding such excesses.
The economic incentive for avoiding ex-
cessive N applications is relatively great in
corn (Zea mays L.) production because N
fertilizers represent a major expense for corn
producers. There is evidence, however, that
farmers often apply excess N fertilizer be-
cause they do not adjust rates of fertiliza-
tion for N supplied by legumes. Recent stud-
ies reveal that many groups providing N fer-
tilizer recommendations to farmers do not
include such adjustments in their recom-
mendations (4) and that producers often ig-
nore these adjustments when they are rec-
ommended (5, 6, 7, 12). Because legumes
often leave substantial amounts of N for
subsequent crops, there is an obvious need
for new ways to demonstrate the economic
and environmental benefits that can be ob-
tained by adjusting fertilization rates for N
supplied by legumes.
In our study, we used newly developed
soil and tissue tests to evaluate the N status
of corn crops in fields under production
agriculture. The soil and tissue tests used
here can characterize degrees of N excess
during corn production and, therefore, can
identify situations of excessive N applica-
tion. The work was done in a region where
concentrations of nitrate in groundwater
have increased over the past 20 years (9).
Study methods
Our study was conducted in 29 fields of
first-year corn after alfalfa (Medicago sativa
L.) in Bremer, Fayette, and Clayton coun-
ties in northeastern Iowa in 1987. To avoid
consideration of N management practices
when selecting these fields, we contacted
local sales representatives of a particular
corn hybrid (Pioneer 3475) and asked for
names of farmers who purchased this hybrid
and grew alfalfa. We contacted the farmers
and identified those who planted this hybrid
after alfalfa. The farmers were contacted
only after they had fertilized and planted
their fields. They were asked to supply in-
formation regarding cropping history, fer-
tilizer and manure application rates, and
other related information. Of all the farmers
contacted, only one declined to participate.,
We established two adjacent plots (12.2 m
by 6 rows) in each field by placing flags to
mark the corners of each plot. The plots
were selected to represent an area of seem-
ingly uniform soil on the predominant soil
type in each field. We evaluated the N status
of each plot using the late-spring soil test
(3, 10). This test involves determination of
nitrate concentrations in the surface 30-cm
(12-inch) layer of soil when corn plants are
15 to 30 cm (6-12 inches) tall. Eight core
samples (3.2 cm in diameter), taken to a
depth of 30 cm, were composited to provide
one sample for each plot.
We evaluated the N status of each plot also
by a corn tissue test (1) that involves deter-
mination of nitrate concentrations in the
lower stalk at physiological maturity, that is,
shortly after black layering. Lower stalk sec-
tions, extending from 15 to 35 cm (6-14
inches) above the ground, were collected
from 10 plants and composited to provide
one sample for each plot.
We determined corn grain yields by hand-
harvesting 9-m (30-foot) segments of the two
center rows of each plot and adjusting to
15.5% moisture content.
Results of the soil test, tissue test, and
yield measurements from the duplicate plots
were averaged to indicate results for each
January-February 1990 115
-------
field. We developed a model relating ob-
served soil nitrate concentrations to rates of
N application and ages of the alfalfa stands
preceding the corn using the GLM procedure
described by Spector and associates (13).
Results and discussion
We selected the P3475 com hybrid be-
cause it was used widely in the area and
because we had extensive data concerning
its response to N. We restricted the study
to corn after alfalfa because alfalfa contrib-
utes substantial amounts of fixed N to subse-
quent crops and, therefore, provides a sig-
nificant opportunity for demonstrating the
benefits of giving appropriate N credits for
legumes.
Below-normal rainfall and above-normal
temperatures occurred during April, May,
and June, but timely rainfall during July and
August resulted in above-average yields dur-
ing the study. Corn grain yields in the fields
surveyed ranged from 8.7 to 13.2 Mg/ha (138
to 210 bushels/acre) and averaged 11.7 Mg/ha
(187 bushels/acre).
The farmers indicated that they applied
commercial N fertilizers at rates ranging
from 6 to 227 kg N/ha (5 to 202 pounds/
acre) and averaging 136 kg N/ha (121
pounds/acre). Seventeen of the 29 fields
received hog or cattle manure during the
previous year. The farmers indicated that
two fields received "light" applications, six
fields received "medium" applications, and
nine fields received "heavy" applications of
manure. Age of the alfalfk crop preceding
the corn ranged from 1 to 6 years and aver-
aged 2.9 years. Because farmers were con-
tacted only after the fields had been planted,
we could not obtain precise information
about the amount and N content of the
manure applied or the density of the alfalfa
stand in each field.
The late-spring soil test showed that most
fields surveyed had greater concentrations
of nitrate than required to attain maximum
yields (Figure 1). Blackmer and associates
(3) found that 21 mg nitrate-N/kg soil was
the critical concentration, that is, the con-
centration needed to attain maximum yields.
They (bund that a range of 20-25 mg nitrate-
N/kg soil should be considered optimal.
Seventeen of the 29 fields had at least twice
the critical concentration, and 6 of the 29
fields had at least three times this concen-
tration. The concentration of soil nitrate was
appreciably below the critical level in only
one field. This field had a high population
of weeds, which may have depleted soil
nitrate early in the season and depressed
final grain yield. Because a significant rela-
tionship was not observed between yields
and nitrate concentrations greater than 21
mg nitrate-N/kg soil, this critical level seems
appropriate for this study.
The concentrations of nitrate in the corn-
stalks at maturity showed that all fields
surveyed had more available N than required
to achieve maximum yields (Figure 2). Re-
cent studies in Iowa (J) showed that 0.3 to
1.8 g nitrate-N/kg stalk should be considered
optimal. This range was adequate to attain
maximum yields in this study because no
significant relationship was observed be-
tween yields and stalk nitrate concentrations.
The higher-than-optimal concentration of
stalk nitrate in the field having the lowest
yields reflects the fact that weeds, rather than
N availability, limited yields in this field.
Equation 1 explained 57% of the variabili-
ty in observed soil nitrate concentrations (n)
by considering rates of N application (f),
years of alfalfa preceding the corn (y), and
an interaction between these variables.
—Optimum Concentration Range
0 20 40 60 80 100
SOIL NtTRATE-N CONCENTRATION (mg/kg)
Figure 1. The relationship between corn grain
yields and soil nitrate concentrations in 29 Iowa
fields.
—Optimum Concentration Range
0 3 6 9 12
STALK NITRATE-N CONCENTRATION (g/kg)
Figure 2. The relationship between corn grain
yields and stalk nitrate concentrations in 29
Iowa fields.
0 30 60 90 120 150 130
N FERTILIZER RATE (kg/ha)
Figure 3. The relationship between soil nitrate
concentrations and N fertilization rates for corn
following various years of alfalfa.
n=- 16.80 + 0.63 f - 0.001 f2
+19.66 y - 2.13 y2 - 0.08 fy
[1]
This model was significant at the 0.001 level
of probability. Linear and quadratic terms
in the model were significant at the 0.05 and
0.15 levels of probability, respectively. The
model was not improved by including rates
of manure application. This was unexpected
and probably reflects inadequate informa-
tion about the quantity and N content of the
manures applied.
The model showed that soil nitrate con-
centrations increased with an increase in age
of the alfalfa in fields where only small
amounts of N had been applied (Figure 3).
Soil nitrate concentrations increased with an
increase in the amount of fertilizer N ap-
plied, but the rate of increase diminished as
age of the alfalfa increased. Such an inter-
action could occur if increases in soil nitrate
concentrations (from alfalfa, manure, or fer-
tilizer) caused greater percentages of this
nitrate to be lost by leaching, denitrification,
or immobilization. Greater immobilization
of fertilizer N should be expected during
decomposition of the older alfalfa stands,
which probably had more grasses and higher
carbon-to-nitrogen ratios.
The model suggests that across all rates
of manure applications no commercial fer-
tilizer was needed to attain the critical con-
centration of soil nitrate following 3 or more
years of alfalfa. The amount needed for corn
following 1 year of alfalfa was 40 kg N/ha
(36 pounds/acre) and for corn following 2
years of alfalfa was 16 kg N/ha (14 pounds/
acre). If farmers had used the rates of fer-
tilization suggested by the model, the mean
rate of N application would have been 13
kg/ha (12 pounds/acre), which is 123 kg/ha
(110 pounds/acre) less than the mean rate of
application indicated by the farmers. These
calculations suggest that farmers could have
increased the profitability of corn produc-
tion and substantially reduced the potential
for groundwater contamination if they had
given more appropriate credits for the N
supplied by the alfalfa.
The model indicates that the mean ob-
served concentration of soil nitrate in corn
fields following 3 or more years of alfalfa
would have been 26 mg nitrate-N/kg soil if
commercial N fertilizer had not been ap-
plied. This value is near the upper limit of
the optimal range. It also is in agreement
with results of a related study in the same
area during 1987 (unpublished data). In the
related study, we found an average concen-
tration of 28 mg nitrate-N/kg soil with the
late-spring soil test among seven fields (21
plots) in first-year corn after alfalfa that had
116 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
received no fertilizer N or manure. We also
found that corn grain yields were not
significantly increased by the addition of N
fertilizer to these seven fields. These find-
ings suggest that the excess available N ob-
served in this survey largely could have been
avoided if farmers had adjusted rates of com-
mercial fertilizer application for N supplied
by the alfalfa.
Conclusions
Soil and tissue tests that can characterize
degrees of N excess during corn production
have immediate utility for demonstrating the
economic and environmental benefits of N
fertilizer adjustments. We found that most
fields surveyed in this Iowa study had much
more nitrate-N than needed to attain max-
imum yields of corn. Farmers could have in-
creased the profitability of corn production
and substantially reduced the potential for
groundwater contamination if they had ad-
justed rates of commercial fertilizer applica-
tion to account for N supplied by the
previous alfalfa crops.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Binford, G. D., A. M. Blackmer, and N. M.
El-Hout. 1990. Tissue test for excess nitrogen
during com production. Agron. J. 82: 124-129.
2. Blackmer, A. M. 1987. Losses and transport of
nitrogen from soils. In Frank M. D'ltri and Lois
G. Wolfson [eds.] Rural Groundwater Con-
tamination. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea,
Mich. pp. 85-103.
3. Blackmer, A. M., D. Pottker, M. E. Cerrato,
and J. Webb. 1989. Correlations between soil
nitrate concentrations in late spring and com
yields in Iowa. J. Production Agr. 2:103-109.
4. DeVault, G. 1982. The never-never land ofN.
New Farm 4(1): 29-41.
5. Fox, R. H., and W. P. Piekielek. 1984. Rela-
tionships among anaerobically mineralized
nitrogen, chemical indexes, and nitrogen
availability to com. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:
1087-1090.
6. Hallberg, G. R. 1986. From hoes to herbicides:
Agriclture and groundwater quality. I. Soil and
Water Cons. 41(6): 357-364.
7. Kaap, J. D. 1986. Implementing best manage-
ment practices to reduce nitrate levels in north-
east Iowa groundwater. In Proc., Agr. Impacts
on Ground Vteter Conf. Nat. Water Well Assoc.,
Dublin, Ohio. pp. 412-427.
8. Keeney, D. R. 1986. Sources of nitrate to ground
water. CRC Crit. Rev. Environ. Control 16(3):
257-303.
9. Libra, R. D., G. R. Hallberg, B. E. Hoyer, and
L. G. Johnson. 1986. Agricultural impacts on
ground water quality: The Big Spring Basin
study, Iowa. In Proc., Agr. Impacts on Ground
Water Conf. Nat. Water Well Assoc., Dublin,
Ohio. pp. 253-273.
10. Magdoff, F. R., D. Ross, and J. Amadon. 1984.
A soil test for nitrogen availability to com. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48: 1301-1304.
11. National Research Council. 1978. Nitrates: An
environmental assessment. Nat. Acad. Sci.,
Washington, D.C. 723 pp.
12. Padgitt, Steven. 1986. Agriculture and ground
water quality as a social issue: Assessing farm-
ing practices and potential for change. In Proc.,
Agr. Impacts on Ground Water Conf. Nat. Water
Well Assoc., Dublin, Ohio. pp. 134-144.
13. Spector, P. C., J. H. Goodnight, J. P. Sail, and
W. S. Sarle. 1985. The GLMprocedure. InSAS
User's Guide: Statistics, 1985. SAS Inst., Inc.,
Cary, N. Car. pp. 433-506. D
Soil physical properties after
100 years of continuous
cultivation
S. H. Anderson, C. J. Gantzer, and J. R. Brown
ABSTRACT: A study was conducted to evaluate the effects of 100 years of continuous soil
and crop management on soil physical properties at Sanbom Field, University of Missouri.
Undisturbed soil cores were used to evaluate bulk density, saturated hydraulic conduc-
tivity, water retention, and pore-size distributions. Results indicate that annual additions
of manure decreased bulk density by an average of 0.12 g cmr3 compared to unfertilized
treatments. Saturated hydraulic conductivity was increased by about nine times with an-
nual additions of 13.51 ha~l (6 tons/acre) of manure. Implications are that soil and crop
management have only subtle effects on bulk density and pore-size distribution for this
soil. However, annual additions of manure increased hydraulic conductivity, which may
reduce runoff and the potential for soil erosion.
CONCERNS have arisen in recent years
about the economic and environmen-
tal sustainability of intensive row-crop agri-
culture in the United States (28). The prof-
itability of intensive row-crop systems has
declined during the past decade, possibly
because of a decline in commodity prices
and an increase in machinery, fuel, fertilizer,
and pesticide costs (28). Public concern
about surface water and groundwater con-
tamination (1,15) has pointed out the need
to improve current row-crop management
techniques. Recent interest has focussed on
low-input or sustainable agricultural tech-
niques to minimize the environmental conse-
quences of row-crop production. Historical-
ly, the Amish have used a type of low-input
agriculture (18). Their practices have includ-
ed rotations with legumes and annual addi-
tions of animal manure.
Although different types of sustainable
agricultural systems, such as use of rotations
and annual additions of animal manure, have
been suggested, little work has been pub-
lished that quantifies how long-term use of
such practices may alter soil physical prop-
erties and thus influence potential environ-
mental impacts. A desired environmental ef-
fect of these types of management may be
to reduce stormwater runoff and soil erosion
through increased water infiltration. Incor-
poration of animal manure into the soil may
have beneficial effects on soil physical prop-
erties that may increase infiltration rates.
Manure incorporation has been shown to in-
crease soil aggregation (9, 13), aggregate
S. H. Anderson is an assistant professor of soil
physics, C. J. Gantzer is an associate professor of
soil conservation, andJ. R. Brown is a professor of
soil fertility, Department of Agronomy, University of
Missouri, Columbia, 65211. This article is a contribu-
tion from the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion. Journal Series Number 10921.
stability (8, 31), infiltration (6,18, 31), and
water-holding capacity (13,14). In addition,
manure incorporation has been shown to
decrease bulk density (18, 20) and to in-
crease a soil's resistance to compaction (11).
One reason for the improvement in soil tilth
is an increase in biological activity because
of manure additions (5, 8).
Although some studies have quantified the
effects of manure on soil physical proper-
ties, most have only examined the effects of
manuring for a short time. Researchers at
Rothamsted, England (8), and Sanborn
Field at the University of Missouri-Colum-
bia (2, 29, 31) have maintained experimen-
tal field plots that may be used to evaluate
the effects of annual additions of manure for
long time periods (100 years). Although San-
born Field has been maintained under con-
tinuous cropping, it has only had limited
characterization of soil physical properties
during its 100-year history.
Our objective was to evaluate the effects
of 100 years of soil fertility management for
continuous cropping systems of wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.); corn (Zea mays L.);
timothy (Phleumpratense L.); and a 3-year,
corn-wheat-red clover (Trifolium pratense
L.) rotation on soil tilth, an indicator of
possible environmental consequences of
changing soil fertility management. The soil
physical properties studied were bulk den-
sity, saturated hydraulic conductivity, soil
water retention, and pore-size distribution.
Study methods
Sanbom Field is located on the Universi-
ty of Missouri campus at Columbia. The in-
dividual field plots have been under various
continuous soil and crop management prac-
tices since 1888. The soil within the study
area is a Mexico silt loam (fine, montmoril-
lonitic, mesic Udpllic Ochraqualf), which
January-February 1990 117
-------
is representative of most of the gently roll-
ing, more credible soils of the Midwest clay-
pan area, an area of about 4 million ha (9.9
million acres) within Missouri, Illinois, and
Kansas (/?).
We selected the following rotations for
study: continuous wheat, continuous corn,
continuous timothy, and a corn-wheat-red
clover rotation. The soil fertility manage-
ment treatments included annual fertilization
with inorganic fertilizers, according to the
Missouri soil test recommendations (4); an-
nual addition of 13.51 ha-1 (6 tons/acres) of
barnyard manure; and no fertility added
(unfertilized). "Bible 1 shows the soil and
crop management history of the selected
plots. Details of the management history of
all plots have been described by other
researchers (29).
Plots used in this study were selected
from those that had been managed with con-
stant treatment with only minor alterations
since 1888. Initially, all plots had plant resi-
dues removed each year. However, this
practice was discontinued recently. Since
the 1970s, only continuous corn plots have
had residues removed. Normal tillage for
the plots is fall plowing.
We selected the following cropping treat-
ments to compare the effects of annual fer-
Tabte 1. Cropping and management history of Sanborn Field plots selected for the study.
Plot
Number
2
9
10
6
17
18
22
23
30
25
26
27
Culture
Wheat
Wheat
Wheat
Red clover
Cowpeas
4-year rotation
C-3 grasses
Corn
Corn
Corn
Timothy
Timothy
Wheat
Wheat
Wheat
Whoat/lespodeza
Timothy
3-year rotation
3-year rotation
3-year rotation
Years
1888-1949
1950-1988
1888-1988
1888-1988
1888-1913
1914-1927
1928-1939
1940-1949
1950-1988
1888-1988
1888-1988
1888-1988
1888-1988
1888-1913
1914-1927
1928-1939
1940-1949
1950-1988
1888-1939
1940-1949
1950-1988
1888-1913
1914-1927
1928-1949
1950-1988
1888-1988
Soil Treatment
Chemicals to replace harvest
Fertilized by soil test
Unfertilized
Manured, 13.5 t ha~1
Manured, 13.5 t ha~1
Manured, 6.7 t ha~1
Fertilized
Fertilized
Fertilized by soil test
Unfertilized
Manured, 13.5 t ha~1
Manured, 13.5 t ha~1
Unfertilized
Manured, 13.5 t ha~1
Nitrogen, 11 kg ha~1
Nitrogen, 23 kg ha~1
Limed by soil test; phosphorus, 19 kg ha~1
Fertilized by soil test
Manured, 13.5 t ha-1
Manured 11.2 t ha~1 before corn only
Manured, 13.5 t ha-1; nitrogen,
112 kg ha~1 before corn and 37 kg ha~1
before wheat
Manured, 13.5 t ha~1
Manured, 20.2 t ha~1 before corn only
Limed by soil test; phosphorus 16 kg ha~1
before corn and wheat only
Fertilized by soil test
Unfertilized
Table 2. Average silt content, clay content, organic matter, and pH for the surface horizon
of selected plots of Sanborn Field.
Crop and Soft
Management
Wheat
Unfertilized
Fertilized
Manured
Corn
Unfertilized
Fertilized
Manured
Timolhy
Unfertilized
Fertilized
Manured
Rotation
Unfertilized
Fertilized
Manured
Plot
Number
9
2
10
17
6
18
23
30
22
27
26
25
Silt
Content
72.0
59.6
73.5
66.7
68.1
62.5
76.9
70.9
76.9
80.0
76.3
75.3
Clay
Content
21.8
26.6
20.5
26.7
21.5
30.0
16.7
19.9
16.7
14.8
16.1
17.1
Organic
Matter
1.45
2.18
2.70
0.90
1.90
2.48
2.45
2.38
4.03
2.05
2.50
3.23
pH
4.5
4.8
5.7
4.5
5.4
6.3
5.0
5.6
6.2
5.2
5.0
5.7
tilization or manuring with unfertilized
treatments: continuous wheat (plots 2, 9,
10); continuous corn (plots 6, 17, 18); con-
tinuous timothy (plots 22, 23, 30); and a
3-year corn-wheat-red clover rotation (plots
25, 26, 27), referred to as the 3-year rota-
tion. The rotation plots were planted to
wheat in the fall of 1988. Table 1 shows
changes from the original soil and crop
management during the 100-year history.
Table 2 provides soil textural data for the
surface horizon in each plot. These data
were obtained using the pipette technique
(12) on soil material taken for the 100-year
characterization of the plots on Sanborn
Field (16). The most notable feature in the
data is that the plots with the corn treatment
had much higher clay contents compared to
the other plots. This was primarily because
of topsoil erosion and the subsequent mix-
ing of higher clay content material from the
subsoil with the remaining topsoil (10).
Table 2 also shows soil organic matter
data measured using a dry combustion fur-
nace (26) and pH data measured in 0.01M
CaCl2 solution (25).
On March 14, 1989, we removed four,
76-mm-diameter X 76-mm-long undis-
turbed soil cores at soil depths of 25 to 100
mm (1 to 4 inches) using a Uhland sampler
from each of the 12 selected plots. The soil
cores, which were housed in aluminum
rings, were taken using the core sampling
method (3). The cores were trimmed and
transported to the laboratory. We deter-
mined the soil water characteristic for each
core at soil water potentials of 0.0, —0.4,
-1.0, -2.5, -5.0, -10.0, -15.0,
-20.0, -25.0, -30.0, and -40.0 kPa
(21). After the cores were removed from
pressure cells, they were weighed and
slowly resaturated from the bottom over 48
hours. We then meaured saturated hydrau-
lic conductivity using a constant-head per-
meameter (22). Soil cores were oven-dried
and weighed to allow calculation of bulk
density subsequent to measurement of the
saturated hydraulic conductivity. We es-
timated pore-size distribution from the
water retention data (7). The equivalent
pore radius of the smallest drained pore
neck was estimated using the following
relation:
r = -2 a cos 0 / (e g h) [1]
where r is the equivalent pore radius, a is
the surface tension of water, 0 is the con-
tact angle, g is the density of water, g is the
gravitational acceleration, and h is the soil
water pressure head.
We used pore-size classes (23) to
categorize pore size macropores, > 500 /tin
radius; mesopores, 5-500 /tin radius; and
micropores, < 5-fim radius. Mesopores
118 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
were further classified (17, 27) into coarse
mesopores (25-500 /on radius) and fine
mesopores (5-25 jim radius).
Results and discussion
Bulk density. Table 3 shows the means
and coefficients of variation for bulk densi-
ty measured on cores removed in 1989. Bulk
density varied from 1.13 g cm~3 in the
manured corn plot to 1.45 g cmr3 in the
unfertilized wheat plot. The coefficients of
variation for the plots were all less than
10%, which is expected for bulk density
measurements (30). We found that the low-
est bulk densities for each cropping treat-
ment were in the manured treatments. This
was expected because annual additions of
manure will increase soil organic matter and
improve soil structure. The highest bulk
densities for each cropping treatment oc-
curred in the unfertilized treatments, except
in the timothy plots.
Only two contrasts could be made using
individual plots for replication. The "fer-
tilized vs. others" (others included manured
and unfertilized) contrast was not significant
at the 0.10 level for bulk density, while the
"manured vs. unfertilized" contrast was sig-
nificant at the 0.10 level (Table 4). The ef-
fect of 100 years of annual manure applica-
tions resulted in an average decrease of 0.12
g cm-3 in bulk density. Although we found
differences in bulk density between treat-
ments, the differences probably did not re-
strict root growth. The lower bulk densities
in the manured treatments were due to
higher concentrations of organic matter
(Table 2). The higher organic matter con-
tent indicates that slightly better soil tilth
may occur because organic matter creates
conditions favoring better soil structure and
less potential soil crusting.
Saturated hydraulic conductivity. Table
3 shows saturated hydraulic conductivity
means. The hydraulic conductivity varied
from 0.001 m hr~' in the unfertilized wheat
plot to 1.089 m hr-' in the manured corn
plot. The coefficients of variations of the
conductivity for the plots varied from 32 %
to 125%, which are similar to values ob-
tained by other researchers (30). The highest
hydraulic conductivity values occurred in the
manured plots for all cropping treatments.
The lowest hydraulic conductivity values
were in the unfertilized plots, except for the
timothy treatment. The "fertilized vs.
others" contrast was not significant at the
0.10 level for hydraulic conductivity, while
the "manured vs. unfertilized" contrast was
significant at the 0.01 level (Table 4). Al-
though only small differences existed in bulk
density between manured and unfertilized
plots, there were large differences in hy-
draulic conductivity.
Table 3. Means and coefficients of variation for bulk density and saturated hydraulic con-
ductivity measured in 1989 in selected plots from Sanborn Field.
Crop and Soil
Management
Wheat
Unfertilized
Fertilized
Manured
Corn
Unfertilized
Fertilized
Manured
Timothy
Unfertilized
Fertilized
Manured
Rotation
Unfertilized
Fertilized
Manured
Bulk
Mean
(g cm-3)
1.45
1.25
1.15
1.20
1.13
1.13
1.24
1.34
1.18
1.32
1.28
1.27
Density
Coefficient
of Variation
(»/o)
3.0
9.6
1.8
8.1
2.6
4.5
1.8
2.5
0.5
1.4
2.5
1.7
Saturated Hydraulic
Conductivity
Mean
(m hr-1)
0.001
0.303
0.750
0.058
0.119
1.089
0.262
0.188
1.037
0.004
0.005
0.058
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
104.3
125.5
52.2
67.0
75.3
53.2
69.5
82.2
56.3
31.7
38.6
73.8
Table 4. Significance levels for single-degree-of-freedom contrasts for physical proper-
ties measured in 1989 in selected plots of Sanborn Field.
Physical Property
Bulk density
Hydraulic conductivity
Water content (O.OkPa)
Water content (-0.4 kPa)
Fine mesopore fraction
(5 to 25 urn radius)
Effect*
Fertilized vs. others
Manured vs. unfertilized
Fertilized vs. others
Manured vs. unfertilized
Fertilized vs. others
Manured vs. unfertilized
Fertilized vs others
Manured vs. unfertilized
Fertilized vs. others
Manured vs. unfertilized
Significance Level
NS
0.10
NS
0.01
NS
0.10
NS
0.05
NS
0.10
'Only those effects significant at the 0.10 level are illustrated.
Annual additions of manure for 100 years
resulted in an average increase in saturated
hydraulic conductivity of about nine times.
We speculate that these annual manure ad-
ditions increased biological activity, which
altered soil structure, which in turn in-
creased saturated hydraulic conductivity.
Figure 1 illustrates the large correlation
(r=0.95) between log-transformed conduc-
tivity and log-transformed number of pores
greater than 1 mm in diameter. Pores were
counted in the soil cores immediately after
Number of Porps
Figure 1. Mean saturated hydraulic conductivity
as a function of the mean number of pores
greater than 1 mm in diameter, measured in soil
cores taken from the 25- to 100-mm depth in 1989
from Sanborn Field.
we determined saturated hydraulic conduc-
tivity. These pores probably were created by
earthworms (Lumbricus sp.) because quali-
tative estimates of earthworm populations
encountered during core sampling in the
plots were correlated with the number of
pores greater than 1 mm in diameter mea-
sured in the cores. Because saturated hy-
draulic conductivity was higher in manured
plots, infiltration will be higher during many
periods of the year for these treatments. Im-
plications are that greater infiltration, less
runoff, less soil erosion, but greater move-
ment of nutrients through the soil profile
could occur in plots having higher saturated
conductivities. This will depend on the loca-
tion of soil nutrients in relation to water
moving through these macropores.
Water retention. Figure 2 shows water
retention curves influenced by soil and crop
management. Except for the corn treat-
ments, the manured plots had the highest
water content at saturation. We attributed
this to the slightly lower bulk densities and
higher organic matter levels that were
present in the manured plots. The "fertil-
ized vs. others" contrast was not significant
at the 0.10 level for any part of the curve.
However, the "manured vs. unfertilized"
January-February 1990 119
-------
contrast was significant at the 0.10 level for
water contents at saturation and at -0.4 kPa.
This may be important because use of ma-
nure can improve the water-holding capacity
of the soil. However, our data showed no
significant increase in water-holding capac-
ity of the surface soil due to annual manure
additions over 100 years.
Pore-size distribution. Hgure 3 shows the
relative proportions of pores divided into
macropores, coarse mesopores, fine meso-
pores, and micropores, as influenced by soil
management and cropping system. In gen-
eral, there appeared to be a 20 % greater pro-
portion of macropores and coarse mesopores
in the manured plots relative to the unfer-
tilized plots. This effect was most striking
in the wheat treatment. The "fertilized vs.
others" contrast was not significant at the
0.10 level for any of the pore-size classes.
1 10
PRESSURE HEAD (-kPa)
1 10
PRESSURE HEAD (-kPa)
PRESSURE HEAD (-kPa) PRESSURE HEAD (-kPa)
Figure 2, Water retention curves as affected by soil and crop management treatments measured
in soil cores taken In the 25- to 100-mm depth from Sanborn Field from the following selected
plots: (a) continuous corn, (b) corn-wheat-red clover rotation, (c) continuous timothy, and (d) con-
tinuous wheat.
f*
-------
Erie Basin case study. 3. Soil and Water Cons.
40: 125-132.
2. Balesdent, J., G. H. Wagner, and A. Mariotti.
1988. Soil organic matter turnover in long-term
field experiments as revealed by carbon-13
natural abundance. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52:
118-124.
3. Blake, G. R., and K. H. Hartge. 1986. Bulk den-
sity. In A. Klute [ed]. Methods of Soil Analysis,
Part 1. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wise. pp.
363-375.
4. Buchholz, D. D. 1983. Soil test interpretations
and recommendations handbook. Dept. Agron.
Univ. Mo., Columbia.
5. Converse, J. C, G. D. Bubenzer, and W. H.
Paulson. 1976. Nutrient losses in runoff from
winter spread manure. Trans., ASAE 19: 517-519.
6. Cross, O. E., and P. E. Fischbach. 1973. Water
intake rates on a silt loam soil with various
manure application rates. Trans., ASAE 16:
282-284.
7. Danielson, R. E., and P. L. Sutherland. 1986.
Porosity. In A. Klute [ed]. Methods of Soil
Analysis, Pan 1. Am. Soc. Agron.,, Madison,
Wise. pp. 443-461.
8. Davies, D. B., and D. Payne. 1988. Management
of soil physical properties. In A. Wild [ed].
Russell's Soil Conditions and Plant Growth.
Longman, New "fork, N.Y. p. 437.
9. Elson, J. 1943. A four-year study'on the effects
of crop, lime, manure, andfertilizer on macro-
aggregation ofDunmore silt loam. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. Proc. 8: 87-90.
10. Gantzer, C. J., S. H. Anderson, and A. L.
Thompson. 1989. Estimating soil erosion after
100 years of cropping on Sanbom Field. Spec.
Rpt. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta., Columbia.
II. Gaultney, L., G. W. Krutz, G. C. Steinhardt,
and J. B. Liljedahl. 1982. Effects of subsoil com-
paction on corn yields. Trans., ASAE 25:
563-569.
12. Gee, G. W., and J. W. Bauder. 1986. Particle-
size analysis. In A. Klute [ed.] Methods of Soil
Analysis. Pan I. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison,
Wise., pp. 383-411.
13. Gregory, P. J. 1988. Water and crop growth. In
A. Wild [ed]. Russell's Soil Conditions and
Plant Growth. Longman, New \ork, N.Y. p.
357.
14. Hafez, A. R. 1974. Comparative changes in soil
physical properties induced by admixtures of
manures from various domestic animals. Soil
Sci. 118: 53-59.
15. Hallberg, G. R. 1986. From hoes to herbicides:
Agriculture and groundwater quality. J. Soil and
Water Cons. 41: 357-364.
16. Hammer, R. D., and J. R. Brown. 1989. One
hundred years of Sanborn Field: Lessons for
future long-term research. Spec. Rpt. Mo. Agri.
Exp. Sta., Columbia.
17. Hartge, K. H. 1978. Einfuhrung in die Boden-
physik. Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart, W.
Germany.
18. Jackson, M. 1988. Amish agriculture and no-
till: The hazards of applying the USLE to unusual
farms. J. Soil and Water Cons. 43: 483-496.
19. Jamison, V. C., D. D. Smith, and J. F. Thorn-
ton. 1968. Soil and water research on a claypan
soil. Tech. Bull. 1379. Agr. Res. Serv., U.S.
Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C.
20. Khaleel, R., K. R. Reddy, and M. R. Overcash.
1981. Changes in soil physical properties due to
organic waste applications: A review. J. Environ.
Qual. 10: 133-141.
21. Klute, A. 1986. Water retention: Laboratory
methods. In A. Klute [ed]. Methods of Soil
Analysis, Pan I. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison,
Wise. pp. 635-662.
22. Klute, A., andC. Dirksen. 1986. Hydraulic con-
ductivity and diffusivity: Laboratory methods.
In A. Klute (ed). Methods of Soil Analysis, Pan
1. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wise. pp.
687-734.
23. Luxmoore, R. J. 1981. Micro-, meso-, and
macroporosity of soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45:
671-672.
24. McGinty, K. S. 1989. Tillage effects on soil phys-
ical properties and temporal variability of in-
filtration. M.S. thesis. Univ. Mo., Columbia.
25. McLean, E. O. 1982. SoilpH and lime require-
ment. In A. L. Page et al. [ed.] Methods of Soil
Analysis, Pan 2. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison,
Wise. pp. 199-224.
26. Nelson, D. W, and L. E. Sommers. 1982. Total
carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In
A. L. Pageetal. [ed.] Methods of Soil Analysis,
Pan2. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wise. pp.
539-580.
27. Sekera, F. 1951. Gesunder und kranker Boden.
4. Aufl. Parey, Hamburg, W. Germany.
28. Stinner, B. R., andG. J. House. 1989. The search
for sustainable agroecosystems. J. Soil and Water
Cons. 44: 1II-II6.
29. Upchurch, W. J., R. J. Kinder, J. R. Brown, and
G. H. Wagner. 1985. Sanborn Field, historical
perspective. Bull. 1054. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta.,
Columbia.
30. Warrick, A. W, and D. R. Nielsen. 1980. Spa-
tial variability of soil physical properties in the
field. In D. Hillel [ed.] Applications of Soil
Physics. Academic Press, New York, N.Y. pp.
326-327.
31. Woodruff, C. M. 1939. Variations in the state
and stability of aggregation as a result of dif-
ferent methods of cropping. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Proc. 4: 13-18. D
Farming systems' influences
on soil properties and crop
yields
D. H. Rickerl and J. D. Smolik
ABSTRACT: Systems that reduce off-farm agricultural inputs for crop production must re-
tain soil productivity and farm profitability in order to be sustainable. This study deter-
mined the effects of the farming systems on soil physical properties and crop yields during
the establishment stages of the systems. The three farming system treatments were alter-
nate, conventional, and ridge-till. In the alternate system, no commercial fertilizers or
pesticides and no moldboard plow were used. The four-year crop rotation in the alternate
system was oats overseeded with alfalfa (Avena sativa L. /Medicago saliva L.)-alfalfa-soybean
(Glycine max L. merr)-corn (Zea mays L.). The crop rotations in the conventional and
ridge-till systems were corn-soybean-spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), with primary
tillage occuring after the conventional spring wheat. Soil water was limited in all systems
because of drought in 1988. No one system consistently maintained soil water levels dif-
ferent from the others. Crop residue, especially in oats overseeded with alfalfa, kept soils
cool and damp in the spring. Spring soil bulk density was reduced by tillage the previous
fall, but differences were eliminated by mid-season. Soybean yield was generally greater
in the alternate system than in the conventional or ridge-till systems. Corn grain yield
was greater in the conventional and ridge-till systems than in the alternate system until
drought stress reversed the rank. Conventional wheat consistently had higher yields than
ridge-till wheat. Differences in soil physical properties were related to specific manage-
ment practices or environmental influences, as opposed to being characteristic of a system,
and alternate systems may have their greatest potential under drought stress.
LOW-INPUT, sustainable agricultural
systems are being examined in many
midwestern land grant universities. South
Dakota State University has been conduct-
ing farming systems research since 1984.
Preliminary results indicate that alternate
systems without commercial fertilizers or
pesticides and without use of the moldboard
plow can compete economically with con-
ventional and ridge-till systems (2).
Tillage and crop rotation research has
been abundant. Conservation tillage systems
have been refined to meet compliance re-
quirements while maintaining crop yields
that are competitive with conventional sys-
tems (4). Rotations have been important in
the success of these conservation tillage sys-
D. H. Rickerl is an assistant professor andj. D.
Smolik is a professor in the Plant Science Depart-
ment, South Dakota State University, Brookings
57007. This study was supported in part by USA grant
12-88-12.
terns. (5). Recent concern about reducing
agricultural chemical use and protecting
groundwater quality has made low-input,
sustainable agriculture an important area of
research. The sustainability of a farming
system relies heavily on sustained soil pro-
ductivity.
This article presents data from a study
with the specific objectives of comparing
the influence of three farming systems on
soil physical properties and crop yields.
Study methods
Field studies were established in 1985 at
the Northeast research station near Water-
town, South Dakota, on a Brookings silty
clay loam (Pachic Udic Haploboroll). The
long-term objectives are to determine the
agronomic, economic, and environmental
sustainability of three farming systems. This
report discusses the analyses of soil proper-
ties and the yields achieved during the
January-February 1990 121
-------
Table 1 Crop rotation and fall primary tillage in each system during 1986,1987, and 1988.
Primary Tillage
System
Alternate
Conventional
Ridge
Crop Rotation
Oat-alfalfa
Alfalfa
Soybeans
Corn
Corn
Soybeans
Spring Wheat
Corn
Soybeans
Spring Wheat
7986
None
Chisel
None
Disk
None
None
Moldboard
None
None
Fall-ridged
7987
None
Chisel
None
Disk
Disk
None
Moldboard
None
None
Chisel
7988
None
Chisel
None
Disk
Disk
None
Moldboard
None
None
Chisel
Table 2 Cultural practices for row crops in each system, 1986-1989.
Seeding
Planting Rate
Year Date (1,000 seeds ha-
Herblcide Hand N-P-K as
Rate Weeding Fertilizer
1) (Alkgha-1) (hrs ha~1) (kg ha~1)
Com Alternate 1986 May 19
1987 May 12
1988 May 4
1989 May 9
Conventional 1986 May 14
1987 May 6
1988 May 4
1989 May 9
Ridge-till 1986 May 19
1987 May 6
1988 May 4
1989 May 9
Soybeans Alternate 1986 May 28
1987 May 15
1988 May 10
1989 May 16
Conventional 1986 May 20
1987 May 14
1988 May 10
1989 May 16
Ridge-till 1986 May 19
1987 May 13
1988 May 10
1989 May 16
479
479
456
456
479
479
456
456
479
479
456
456
370
370
370
370
370
370
370
370
370
370
370
370
None
None
None
None
Lasso II 1.2
Lasso II 1.2
Lasso II 1.2
Lasso II 1.2
Lasso II 1.2
Banvel 0.3
Lasso II 1.2
Lasso II 1 .2
Lasso 1 1 1.2
None
None
None
None
Treflan 0.8
Treflan 0.8
Treflan 0.8
Treflan 0.8
Lasso II 1 .2
Blazer + 0.4
Poast 0.3
Lasso II 1.2
Blazer 0.4
Lasso II 1.2
Lasso II 1.2
Poast + 0.2
Crop oil
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
2.8
0.0
2.6
5.2
2.6
4.0
3.0
3.7
3.3
3.4
2.8
4.7
None
None
None
None
112-0-0
41-0-0
84-34-0
None
112-0-0
41-0-0
118-34-0
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Table 3. Cultural practices for spring wheat and alfalfa in each system, 1986-1989.
Crop
Spring wheat
Oat-alfalfa
Alfalfa
System Vear
Conventional 1986
1987
1988
1989
Ridge-till 1986
1987
1988
1989
Alternate 1986
1987
1988
1989
Alternate 1986
1987
1988
1989
Planting Seeding Rate Herbicide Rate
Date (kg ha- 1) (Al kg ha-i)
April 29
April 15
April 11
April 18
April 29
April 15
April 11
April 20
April 23
April 16
April 12
April 21
NA
NA
NA
NA
84
78
78
78
84
78
78
78
54/11
54/11
54/11
56/11
NA
NA
NA
NA
Hoelon
MCPA
Hoelon +
Buctril
Hoelon +
Hoelon +
Buctril
Hoelon
MCPA
Hoelon +
Buctrii
Hoelon +
Buctril
Hoelon +
Buctril
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.3
N-P-K
(kgha-i)
101-0-0
101-0-0
86-0-0
86-0-0
118-34-0
129-22-0
129-22-0
101-0-0
101-0-0
86-0-0
86-0-0
118-34-0
118-34-0
129-22-0
129-22-0
37-35-160'
117-31-198
126-21-119
118-33-86
None
None
None
None
*Fali application of feedtot manure at 4.5,5.6, 6.0, and 6.21 ha-1 in 1986,1987,1988, and 1989,
respectively.
establishment years of the systems, com-
pares crops within each system, and com-
pares the effects of the systems on a par-
ticular crop.
Crops included in the systems were
chosen to represent the dominant crops pro-
duced in northeastern South Dakota. The
alternate system was similar to that used by
alternative farmers in the area. The alternate
system's rotation was oats overseeded with
alfalfa (Avena sativa L.IMedicago sativa
L.)-alfalfa-soybeans (Glycine max L. merr.)
-corn (Zea mays L.). In this four-year rota-
tion, alfalfa was used to reduce weed prob-
lems, to interrupt disease and insect cycles,
and to provide nutrients for subsequent
crops. The stand was maintained for 1 year
past the establishment year. Alfalfa stands,
which are traditionally maintained 4-5 years
as hay crops, can deplete soil moisture and
increase perennial weeds, thus limiting
yields of following crops. Also, older stands
are more subject to foliar, root, and crown
diseases; nematodes; and weevils and may
be more difficult to incorporate without the
use of the moldboard plow. Feedlot manure
was applied in the fall to the oats-alfalfa
treatment. Alfalfa forage was harvested three
times each year. In most years alfalfa was
incorporated by undercutting followed by
chisel plowing. Alfalfa was followed by soy-
bean rather than corn, which requires more
water. Soybeans use less water than corn and
are planted later so that soils can store early
spring rainfall. The later planting also allows
a later pre-plant tillage for weed control.
Corn followed soybeans as the last crop in
the rotation. In the alternate system no com-
mercial fertilizers or pesticides were used.
The cultural practices are summarized in
tables 1, 2, and 3.
The conventional system had a crop rota-
tion of corn-soybeans-spring wheat (Triti-
cum aestivum L.). In the conventional sys-
tem recommended rates of herbicides were
used and soils were fertilized according to
soil tests (Tables 2 and 3). Corn stubble was
generally disked in the fall (Table 1), and
a field cultivator and disk were used to in-
corporate herbicide prior to soybean plant-
ing. Soybean stubble was not tilled in the
fall, but was disked prior to wheat planting.
After harvest, conventional spring wheat
plots were moldboard-plowed.
In the ridge-till system, the crop rotation
was corn-soybeans-spring wheat. Recom-
mended rates of fertilizer and herbicide were
used. Corn plots were ridged at second cul-
tivation (except in 1986 when wheat stub-
ble was ridged in the fall). Soybean plots
were planted on existing ridges, but not
ridge-cultivated. Wheat following soybeans
in the ridge-till system was then planted on
nearly level ground. Wheat was seeded with
122 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
a hoe-driU. This ridge rotation was devel-
oped to accommodate farmers who wanted
to use ridge-till as a soil conservation
practice, but who had small grains in their
rotation.
In each system all crops in the rotations
were planted each year. Because the study
was established in 1985, the longest rotation,
the alternate system, was completed in 1988.
In most years of the study all row crops in
all systems were cultivated twice. In the al-
ternate system, row crops were also rotary-
hoed twice. Plot size was 311 m2 (3,350
square feet) to allow for the use of field-scale
equipment. Row crops were planted in
92-cm (36-inch) rows and small grains were
drilled with 17.15-cm (6.75-inch) spacing.
The design was a randomized complete
block with four replications. Soil gravi-
metric water content and bulk density were
measured in the top 15 cm (6 inches) of soil
in April and July. Soil bulk density samples
were taken with a Uhlen sampler. Soil tem-
peratures (0-15 cm depth) were also recorded
in April and July using a metal thermometer
for point measurements in the row. Each fall,
soil water content was measured gravimetri-
cally at depths of 0-15, 15-60, and 60-120 cm
(0-6, 6-24, and 24-48 inches). Seasonal rain-
fall and the deviation from the long-term
average are given in table 4. Additional data
collected included crop residue as a percent-
age of soil surface covered and crop yields.
Data were analyzed with a general linear
model program for PC-SAS (1985). Fisher's
protected least significant difference (FLSD)
was used to separate means.
Results
Soil water. In 1987, soil water (0-15 cm)
declined as the season progressed and crop
demands increased (Tables 5 and 6). In
1988, soil water dropped to critically low
levels during drought conditions but in-
creased with fall rainfall. Spring (5/19) soil
water in 1989 was greater than soil water
during the fall of 1988 (7/21), but decreased
with crop removal and limited summer rain-
fall. The oats and alfalfa residue caught
more snow than other treatments, and soil
water levels in the springs of 1987 and 1989
were greater in alfalfa than other alternate
crops (Table 5). By mid-July, the dif-
ferences in soil water were no longer signifi-
cant. In the conventional system, there was
a general tendency for soybean-producing
soils to have greater soil moisture than
spring wheat-producing soils. Crop-related
trends were not consistent for soil moisture
levels in the ridge-till system.
Comparing systems within crops, soil
water for spring wheat was greater in the
conventional system than in the ridge-till
system in only one situation. The 0-15 cm
depth in the fall of 1988, when harvest was
followed by rainfall, had higher soil water
content when the spring wheat stubble was
turned with a moldboard plow than when
it was chisel-plowed (Table 6). This differ-
ence was not evident in the spring soil mois-
ture level. Differences among systems for
soybean-producing soils were not consistent
throughout the season in 1987 and were not
significant in 1988 or 1989. Consistent
trends for differences due to the system used
Tables. Soil water (0-15 cm depth) in April and July as influenced by farming system.
Soil Water by Date
1987
System Residue" Crop* 4/15 7/6
1988
1989
Average
n/.
Alternate
Conventional
Ridge-till
FLSD.05
CO
OA
Al-
SO
SW
CO
SB
SW
CO
SB
OA
AL
SB
CO
CO
SB
SW
CO
SB
SW
24
30
25
18
21
25
20
17
17
23
5.2
21
23
21
23
25
24
20
23
21
20
2.2
18
19
18
17
18
18
20
19
17
20
NS
7 21
8
8
8
6
9
7
8
9
7
1.4
24
22
23
22
23
21
26
24
23
2.2
11
12
15
13
14
17
13
16
15
11
2.1
21
20
18
19
24
20
20
17
21
20
NS
12
14
15
14
15
17
14
16
15
13
1 4
*CO = corn, OA=oats, AL = alfalfa, SB = soybeans, SW = spring wheat.
Table 6. Soil water content in thefall profile as influenced by farming system.
Soil Water Content in Soil Profile by Year and Depth (cm)
1987
1988
Average
System/Crop 0-15 15-60 60-120 0-15 15-60 60-120 0-15 15-60 60-120
Alternate
Conventional
Ridge-till
FLSD.os
OA*
AL
SB
CO
CO
SB
SW
CO
SB
SW
18
18
19
19
20
19
18
19
20
19
NS
13
12
14
13
13
16
20
13
16
17
2.4
8
6
10
8
9
10
11
11
12
8
2.7
13
12
17
17
14
16
15
16
17
12
2.8
— "/o -
14
18
15
14
11
16
13
14
16
14
3.5
9
10
10
11
9
11
12
8
12
10
NS
. 16
15
18
17
17
17
16
18
18
15
NS
13
15
14
14
12
16
16
14
16
15
NS
9
8
10
10
9
10
12
10
12
9
NS
*CO = corn, OA = oats, AL = alfalfa, SB = soybeans, SW = spring wheat.
Table 7. Effect of farming system on fall and spring soil surface residue cover.
Residue Cover by Date
Table 4. Growing season
1986-1989.
precipitation,
System
Fall
Residue '
Spring
Crop"
1987-1988
10/20
5/23
7988-7989
70/79
Precioitatinn hv Year
Month
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
Total
Deviation*
7986
14.1
11.8
9.2
10.5
7.9
10.6
0.3
64.5
+ 20.6
7987
1.4
5.2
3.0
10.6
14.3
6.2
1.1
41.8
-2.1
1988 1989 Alternate
1.5
7.0
1.8
2.2
10.2
7.6
0.5
30.8
-13.1
7.5
2-9 Conventional
4.4
6.1
11.4
3.9 Ridge-till
1.4
37.6
— D.o .05
OA
AL
SB
CO
CO
SB
SW
CO
SB
SW
CO
OA
AL
SB
SW
CO
SB
SW
CO
SB
98
31
66
61
66
78
26
66
69
91
12.7
99
29
42
39
49
45
12
51
48
74
13.8
99
41
46
46
27
37
15
48
61
68
14.1
5/79
O/o
100
38
43
33
23
33
6
35
54
54
12.5
Average
October May
98
36
56
54
47
57
21
57
65
79
14.0
99
33
42
36
36
39
9
43
51
64
12.8
*CO = corn, OA = oats, AL = alfalfa, SB = soybeans, SW = spring wheat.
January-February 1990 123
-------
for com production were not evident.
When soil water content was averaged
across years, April values were not signifi-
cantly different due to treatment (Table 5).
By mid-July, soil water reflected crop use,
and spring wheat nearing maturity had re-
moved more water than the row crops.
Spring wheat in the ridge-till system had less
water in the 0-15 cm depth than conventional
spring wheat. Fall soil water contents, when
averaged over years, were not different due
to treatment (Table 6).
Crop residue and soil temperature. Crop
residue ranged from 100% of the soil sur-
face covered in oats-alfalia to 6% in plowed
spring wheat stubble (Table 7). Using the
chisel plow in spring wheat stubble left sig-
nificantly more surface residue than using
the moldboard plow. Ridging also main-
tained higher row-crop residues than the
Table 8. Influence of farming system on soil temperature, in the row at 0-15 cm depth,
In April and July.
Soil Temperature
1987
System Residue*
Alternate
Conventional
Ridge-till
FLSD>05
CO
OA
AL
SB
SW
CO
SB
SW
CO
SB
Crop*
OA
AL
SB
CO
CO
SB
SW
CO
SB
SW
4/15
17
10
17
20
15
16
17
16
17
3.2
7/6
25
23
23
24
24
23
25
26
23
25
1.5
4/23
20
18
20
20
19
19
20
19
19
20
NS
by Date
7988
4/79
9
7
8
10
7
9
9
8
10
8
1.5
7/12
31
30
28
29
29
27
32
28
27
31
1.4
Average
April
15
12
15
16
15
15
16
15
15
15
1.6
July
28
26
26
26
26
25
28
27
25
28
1.3
•CO-corn, OA«-oats, AL=alfalfa, SB = soybeans, SW = spring wheat.
Table 9. Soil bulk density In April and July as influenced by farming system.
Soil Bulk Density" by Date
1987
7988
1989
Average
System Resfcfaef Crept ~4/75 7/6 4/25 7/2f 4/79 7/72 April July
g/CC
Mternate CO
OA
AL
SB
Conventional SW
CO
SB
^idge-till SW
SB
OA
AL
SB
CO
CO
SB
SW
CO
SB
SW
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.5
1.6
1.2
1.3
1.4
0.18
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.3
NS
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.4
NS
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
NS
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
NS
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
0.09
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.4
0.10
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
NS
"Sampled In the 0-15 cm soil depth.
•fCO-oorn, OA-oats, AL=alfalfa, SB=soybeans, SW=spring wheat.
Table 10. Grain yields as Influenced by farming system.
Grain Yields by Date
Crop
Corn
Soybeans
Spring Wheat
Oats
Alfalfa
System
Alternate
Conventional
Ridge-till
FLSD.05
Alternate
Conventional
Ridge-till
FLSD os
Conventional
Ridge-till
FLSD 05
Alternate
Alternate
7986
6,216
7,168
7,504
285
1,980
1,860
1,680
186
3,840
3,420
228
2,048
13.8*
7987
, u
5,432
7,784
7,616
784
2,123
2,083
1,920
168
2,940
2,700
192
2,144
9.97
7988
-1
2,464
1,176
2,016
694
720
600
600
NS
1,260
960
156
2,160
6.47
Average
4,704
5,376
5,712
NS
1,608
1,514
1,400
110
2,680
2,360
147
2,117
10.08
'Alfalfa yields are reported in dry matter production (t ha-1).
conventional treatments. Treatment differ-
ences averaged over 2 years remained
significant.
Surface residue insulated the soil and de-
creased spring soil temperatures (Table 8).
Oats-alfalfa residues kept April soil temper-
atures cooler than other crops. Spring wheat
residue that had been moldboard-plowed
allowed soils to warm rapidly in the spring
of 1987 when there was no snow cover. In
1988, spring soil temperatures were mea-
sured later than in 1987 or 1989, and no dif-
ferences were found. When averaged over
years, only the oats-alfalfa residue soils
were significantly oats-alfalfa cooler than
other treatments. The oats-alfalfa residue
itself, as well as its effectiveness in trapping
snow, made it a good soil insulator.
Mid-July soil temperatures at the 0-15 cm
depth reflected differences in soil water con-
tent. When averaged over years, soil tem-
peratures were highest for small grain, fol-
lowed by corn and then soybeans. This rank
was reversed for soil water content.
Bulk density. Fall tillage was the primary
influence on bulk density measured in the
spring of 1987 (Table 9), and bulk densities
were significantly lower in alternate/soy-
bean, conventional/corn, and ridge-till/corn
treatments that had been tilled the previous
fall. Spring bulk density averaged over
years was also significantly less in soils that
had been fall-tilled. Significant differences
in July bulk densities occurred in the sum-
mer of 1989 when conventional spring
wheat plots were the most dense. This dif-
ference was not significant when averaged
over years.
Grain yield. Corn grain yield was greater
in the ridge-till and conventional systems
than in the alternate system in 1986 and
1987, but was less than in the alternate
system in 1988 during drought conditions
(Table 10). Soybean yield in the alternate
system was generally better than the ridge-
till or conventional systems; the conven-
tional system for spring wheat outyielded
spring wheat grown in the ridge-till system.
The 3-year average corn yields were not
significantly different among systems, while
soybean yields were highest for the alter-
nate system and higher in the conventional
system than in the ridge-till system. Spring
wheat yields were higher in the conventional
system than in the ridge-till system.
Discussion
Because this study was designed to com-
pare systems, it is difficult to isolate effects.
However, the soil parameters measured
seemed to relate to a specific practice rather
than to a total system. For example, the
gravimetric soil water content in mid-July
reflected crop use. Soil water content was
124 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
lower in small grains that were nearing
maturity than it was in row crops, regardless
of the system. Averaging over years did not
indicate that one system retained more soil
water than another.
The crop residue and its influence on soil
temperature was dependent on crop and type
of tillage used. Heavy residues left on the
surface, as in the alternate oats-alfalfa treat-
ment, kept soils cool and moist in the
spring. Corn residue left in the ridge-till
system had a similar effect. The 3-year
spring soil temperature averages indicated
that corn, for example, did not influence soil
temperature differently in the alternate sys-
tem that it did in the conventional system.
By mid-July the main effect was no longer
residue but crop growth. Crop water removal
was inversely related to soil temperature.
Soil bulk density was seldom different due
to treatment, although in 1987 spring bulk
densities were less in treatments preceded
by fall tillage. Fall tillage also reduced 3-year
average bulk densities.
Although the soil physical properties were
not unique to a system, grain yields were
different among systems. Soybean yields
were generally greater for the alternate sys-
tem than for the ridge-till and conventional
systems. Soil physical properties measured
did not explain the difference. Spring wheat
yields were also greater in the conventional
system than in the ridge-till system. A third
example of system effects on yield was the
increase in corn yields in the alternate sys-
tem when crops were drought-stressed. This
aspect of the alternate system is important
to the sustainability of a system in an area
where rainfall is limited. Economic analysis
indicated that returns in the drought year
were five times greater in the alternate sys-
tem than in the conventional and ridge-till
systems (7). Improved performance of alter-
native systems under drought stress was also
reported by Sahs and Leosing (7).
The results of this study indicate that soil
physical properties varied with specific prac-
tices or the environment rather than with the
system and that the alternate system's great-
est advantage may be in areas of limited rain-
fall. However, this study, was conducted dur-
ing the establishment phases of the systems,
and it will be important to continue to moni-
tor soil physical properties and crop yields
through additional cycles of the rotation.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Dobbs, Thomas, and Clarence Mends. 1988.
Economic results in 1988 for northeast station
alternative farming systems. Annual Prog. Rpt.
Plant Science pamphlet No. 1. S. Dak. State
Univ., Brookings.
2. Dobbs, T. L., Lyle A. Weiss, and Mark G. Leddy.
1987. Costs of production and net returns for alter-
native farming systems in northeastern South
Dakota: 1986 and "normalized"situations. Econ.
Res. Rep. 87-5. S. Dak. State Univ., Brookings.
3. Ives, R. Morrison, and C. F. Shaykewich. 1987.
Effect of simulated soil erosion on wheat yields
on the humid Canadian prairie. J. Soil and Water
Cons. 42(3): 205-208.
4. Frye, W. W, and R. L. Blevins. 1989. Economi-
cally sustainable crop production with legume
cover crops and conservation tillage. J. Soil and
Water Cons. 44(1): 57-60.
5. Langdale, G. W., and R. L. Wilson, Jr. 1987. In-
tensive cropping sequences to sustain conserva-
tion tillage for erosion control. J. Soil and Water
Cons. 42(5): 352-355.
6. PC-SAS Institute, Inc. 1985. SAS user's guide:
Statistics. Cary, N. Car.
7. Sahs, W. W., and G. Leosing. 1985. Crop rota-
tions and manure versus agricultural chemicals
in dryland grain production. J. Soil and Water
Cons. 40(6): 511-516. D
Tillage and clover cover crop
effects on grain sorghum
yield and nitrogen uptake
R. G. Lemon, F. M. Hons, and V. A. Saladino
ABSTRACT: Winter annual legumes double-cropped with grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor
L. Moench) can potentially provide nitrogen (N)for the sorghum and enhance long-term
sustainability. A 4-year experiment was conducted near College Station, Texas, to evaluate
conventional disk tillage, no-till, and green manuring for their potential in grain sorghum
production. Annual clovers were used in combination with both no-till and green manure
methods, which were compared to conventional disk tillage without clover. Fertilizer rates
ofO and 60 kg N ha~> (54 pounds/acre) were used on all treatments. The green manure
treatment with no added N produced higher grain yields than the similar conventional
disk tillage treatment in 3 of 4 years and was statistically equal to conventional disk tillage
receiving 60 kg N ha~> (54 pounds/acre) in 3 of 4 years. Yields from no-till treatments
without N fertilizer never matched those from conventional disk tillage treatments with
fertilizer. Green manuring of clover prior to sorghum planting apparently better approx-
imated clover N mineralization to sorghum demand, resulting in greater grain produc-
tion. Grain sorghum no-till planted into clover surface mulch cannot be recommended
because N availability was not synchronous with plant demand.
IEGUME cover crops potentially can
Li provide effective erosion control and
biologically fixed nitrogen (N), enhancing
long-term sustainability (6). More informa-
tion is needed, however, about the effects
that tillage systems have on the release of
legume N to subsequent crops.
Much of the early research involving
legumes was directed toward their use as
green manures. In row-crop situations,
legumes normally were rotated with the crop
and plowed under, enabling a subsequent
nonleguminous crop to benefit from the bio-
logically fixed N. Kamprath and associates
(7) and Fleming and associates (3) found
that corn (Zea mays L.) yields increased
substantially following a clover used as a
green manure. Research has shown that
legumes can function effectively as no-till
surface mulches and N sources for suc-
R. G. Lemon was a graduate research assistant,
F. M. Hons is an associate professor of soils, and
V. A. Saladino is an agricultural research techni-
cian, Soil and Crop Sciences Department, Texas
A&M University, College Station, 77843. Lemon cur-
rently is an extension associate, Texas Agricultural Study methods
Extension Service, Texas A&M University. This ar-
ticle is a contribution from the Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station, Texas A&M University.
ceeding crops (2, 5, 9, 77). However, re-
duced N mineralization associated with no-
till legume residues remaining on the soil
surface (7) and soil water depletion by
preceding legumes may create difficulties
for the crop immediately following the
legume.
Most of the pioneering work dealing with
legumes as supplemental N sources for no-
till, spring-planted crops has been done in
the midwestern and southeastern United
States, where edaphic and climatic condi-
tions favor such cropping systems. Little
research has been reported for Texas or the
Southwest concerning the adaptability of
these types of production systems. As pro-
duction costs continue to escalate and the
date for conservation compliance ap-
proaches, the need for alternative cropping
systems becomes increasingly important.
The objectives of our study were to deter-
mine the effects of tillage, annual clover, and
N fertilization on grain sorghum (Sorghum
bicolor L. Moench) yield and N uptake.
We conducted field experiments in 1985
through 1988 at the Texas Agricultural Ex-
January-February 1990 125
-------
pcrimcnt Station Research Rirm in Burleson
County. The average annual precipitation for
the area is 977 mm (38.5 inches); 444 mm
(17.5 inches) normally occur during the sor-
ghum-growing season, March through July.
The soil in the study area is a Weswood silt
loam (fine-silty, mixed, thermic Fluventic
Ustochrcpt).
Tillage systems included conventional disk
tillage without clover, no-till with clover, and
green manure with clover treatments. Clover
plow that were green-manured were disked
twice and rcbedded about 20 days prior to
planting grain sorghum. Clover in no-till
treatments was desiccated with paraquat
(l,rdimcthyl-4,4'-bipyridinium ion) at the
time clover was incorporated in green ma-
nure treatments. All treatments received
preplant, subsuriace-banded N as ammon-
ium nitrate at rates of 0 and 60 kg N ha-'
(54 pounds/acre).
Treatments were arranged in a randomized
complete block design with four replicates.
Each plot was 12.2 m long (40 feet) and con-
sisted of four rows 1 m (40 inches) apart.
Treatments were repeated on the same plots
over 4 years. During the first week in April
of each year, grain sorghum was seeded at
a rate to achieve 180,000 plants ha-'
f72jOOO plants/acre). Grain was harvested in
August each year.
7000
6000-
7o 5000"
J? 4000"
I 3000-
•| 2000-
1000-
0.-
1985
E20 N
•60 N
CT
NT
GU
7000-
eooo-
1 5000-
5« 4000-
I 3000-
4 2000-
1000-
n
1987
tx>t&os)
a
b
I
h ±
I
It,
EZ30N
^60 N
b
CT NT GU
Clover was sown with a standard grain
drill in October of each year at a rate of 18
kg ha-' (16 pounds/acre). Inoculant (Rhizo-
bium trifolii) was applied as a seed treatment
at planting. Dry matter yields of clover were
determined in early March by hand-clipping
random 1-m2 (11.09-square-foot) quadrates
prior to desiccation or tillage. At maturity,
we hand-harvested 3 m (10 feet) of the mid-
dle two rows of each grain sorghum plot for
grain and stover yields. Harvested panicles
were threshed and grain yields adjusted to
14% moisture (U.S. grade 2). We removed
stover at ground level from the harvested
area for total stover dry matter estimation.
All tissue samples (clover, grain, and stover)
were ground to pass a 0.5 mm screen and
digested in a sulfuric acid mixture (10).
Nitrogen determinations were made using
an autoanalyzer system.
The combined analysis of variance indi-
cated a significant difference among years,
and individual year analyses demonstrated
significant treatment x N rate interactions
for grain yield.
Results and discussion
The clover initially used in the study was
Mt. Barker subterranean clover (Trifolium
subterraneum L.), a fairly prostrate variety
that sets seed below ground. The Mt. Barker
Table 1. Clover dry matter production, N
construction, and total N content of above-
ground tissue.
7000i
LSO«U>S)
6000-
I 5000-
o
g 4000-
I 3000
| 2000
O
1000-
0
1986
E30N
BB60 N
ota ob
/
/
CT
NT
GU
7000-
6000-
T 5000-
o
si
g 4000-
I 3000-
| 2000-
o
1000-
n.
EZ30N
1988 M60N
L»(0.08)
-
b
!
i
»•
vim
Mm
\Am
[Am
"Am
a
y.
y
/
',
\
/
a
N
Dry Matter Concentration
Year' (kg ha~1) (%)
1985
1986
1987
1988
860
4,300
5,110
1,300
3.23
2.80
2.63
2.72
Total N
(kg ha-])
27
120
134
35
Figure 1. Tiltage, clover, and N fertilization effects on grain sorghum yield; CT= conventional tillage,
NT-no-tillage, GM=green manure.
*Mt. Barker subterranean clover used in 1985;
Bigbee berseem clover used in 1986, 1987,
and 1988.
variety, however, was not satisfactory for
forage or N production, primarily because
late maturity resulted in little forage growth
by early March.
Subsequently, we used Bigbee berseem
clover (Trifolium alexandrinum L.) for the
remaining 3 years of the study. Bigbee ber-
seem clover was better adapted to the cal-
careous soil and climate of the area; above-
ground dry matter yields and the consequent
N contained in the tissue were much greater
than the subterranean variety (Table 1). We
based clover yield on samples taken from
the no-till and green manure treatments. We
found no difference in clover production be-
tween tillage methods. Clover production
in 1986 and 1987 was excellent. In 1988
clover stand establishment and forage
growth were affected adversely by dry fall
conditions, resulting in low clover yields.
Grain yields for all tillage treatments re-
ceiving 60 kg N ha-' (54 pounds/acre) and
the green manure treatment receiving no
supplemental fertilizer N in 1985 were sig-
nificantly greater than the conventional till-
age and no-till treatments with no added fer-
tilizer N (Figure la). The clover in the
green manure treatment contributed con-
siderably to final grain yield. In addition,
the physical mixing of the tillage operation
may have enhanced the mineralization of
residual organic soil N.
The results suggested that incorporation
of clover as a green manure promoted more
rapid decomposition and mineralization of
tissue N compared to the no-till treatments,
where the clover acted as a surface mulch
(4). The availability of N in the green ma-
nure treatment apparently was more syn-
chronous with critical plant demands. On
the other hand, the majority of N contrib-
uted by the surface mulch in the no-till treat-
ment probably occurred during later stages
of sorghum development. Vanderlip (12)
showed that 70% of the total N present in
grain sorghum at physiological maturity was
accumulated prior to anthesis. Similarly,
Locke and Hons (8) found that most fertil-
izer N accumulation occurred before anthe-
sis in both conventional and no-till systems.
The no-till and green manure treatments
with clover, but without fertilizer N, pro-
126 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
duced significantly more grain than the con-
ventionally tilled treatment without added
N in 1986 (Figure Ib). The large forage and
N production of bigbee berseem clover in
1986 contributed significantly toward sor-
ghum grain yield in the no-till and green
manure treatments receiving no fertilizer N
(Table 1). The large amount of N in the
above-ground clover tissue in 1986 apparent-
ly resulted in increased N availability, par-
ticularly in the no-till treatment. In 1985,
however, little or no benefit was attained
from the no-till surface mulch.
The 1987 sorghum-growing season was
characterized by early spring moisture
stress. We attributed major differences in
yield between treatments to extremely dry
soil conditions, prior to and at planting, es-
pecially in the green manure treatments
(Figure Ic). Green manure treatments were
disked about 20 days prior to planting and
rebedded. During the period from the first
of March to the end of April, only 59 mm
(2.32 inches) of rain fell, resulting in dry
seedbed conditions. Similar conditions ex-
isted in the no-till treatments, resulting in
poor stand establishment and yields in both
tillage systems. Lack of significant rainfall
immediately after planting also accentuated
the stressful conditions imposed by the clo-
ver crop.. Surface soil moisture was more
adequate at planting in the conventional
disk-tillage treatments with no clover, ena-
bling the sorghum crop to establish and pro-
gress in a near normal pattern. Clover pro-
duction in 1987 was 5,100 kg ha-' (4,550
pounds/acre), resulting in 134 kg N ha-'
(120 pounds/acre) in the above-ground bio-
mass (Table 1). Unfortunately, the early, dry
conditions precluded any potential benefit
to the grain sorghum crop.
The green manure treatment receiving no
fertilizer N yielded significantly more sor-
ghum grain than either of the similar no-till
or conventional treatments in 1988 (Figure
Id). As in 1985 and 1986, greater grain
yields and lack of response to applied N in
the green manure treatment indicated that
the clover supplied sufficient N for sorghum
growth and grain yield. Although clover
production was less in 1988 (Table 1), the
substantial grain yields in the green manure
treatments indicated a possible carryover of
N from 1987. We attributed the depressed
yields in the no-till treatments to delayed
maturity caused by replanting. Replanting
was necessary because of severe seedling
disease; this resulted in flowering during
peak sorghum midge (Contarina sorghicold)
infestations. Consequently, neither clover
nor added fertilizer N had much influence
on no-till sorghum grain yield in 1988.
The interaction of tillage and N rate was
not significant for total N removed in above-
150
o>T
0) '
> o
o •= 100
o S
C
•o .8
o i>
> o
o c
I I 5° +
LSD (0.05)
ESCT IBNT CSDGM
N
s
s
s
N
S
\
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
N
S
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*
I
NS
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
V
s
\
s
V
s
V
s
N
N
s
s
N
s
s
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.X
1985 1986 1987 1988
Year
Figure 2. Tillage and clover effects on total N removed in above-ground dry matter. Least signifi-
cant difference bars are for within-year comparisons only.
ground dry matter (stover+ grain). Total N
in above-ground biomass averaged across N
rates indicated that the general trend over
the four years was for greater accumulation
of total crop N in the green manure treat-
ment (Figure 2). The response to green ma-
nuring was manifested not only in greater
crop yields, but also in greater N removal.
Conclusions
One problem with annual clover-grain
sorghum tillage systems in the Southwest,
is the early grain sorghum planting date (late
March to early April) required to avoid
sorghum midge damage. Early sorghum
planting dictates that clover must attain ap-
preciable forage growth prior to desicca-
tion/tillage. Another problem with early sor-
ghum planting is that clovers are not allowed
to mature and set seed. Hence, clover must
be replanted each year at an additional cost.
The green manure treatment with no
added N produced significantly more grain
than the similar conventional tillage treat-
ment in 3 of 4 years and was statistically
equal to conventional plots that received 60
kg N ha-' (54 pounds/acre) in 3 of 4 years.
No-till treatments receiving no N fertilizer
produced greater grain yields than conven-
tional plots with no added N in only 1 of
4 years, and no-till yields never equalled
those on conventional plots with 60 kg N
ha-' (54 pounds/acre). The green manure
system without supplemental N produced
more grain than the similar no-till treatment
in 2 of 4 years.
In our study environment, grain sorghum
no-till planted into clover residue cannot be
recommended because of apparent nonsyn-
chrony between clover N mineralization and
critical plant demand and severe soil water
depletion by clover in 1 of 4 years. Green
manuring of clover prior to sorghum plant-
ing apparently better matched clover N min-
eralization to sorghum demand, resulting in
greater grain yields. Research over more
years and/or modelling of the cropping sys-
tem/climate may be necessary to determine
the probability of soil water depletion by the
clover crop that may adversely affect grain
sorghum yield.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Doran, J. 1980. Soil microbial and biochemical
changes associated with reduced tillage. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 48: 790-794.
2. Ebelhar, S. A., W. W. Frye, and R. L. Blevins.
1984. Nitrogen from legume cover crops for no-
tillage com. Agron. J. 76: 51-55.
3. Fleming, A. A., J. E. Giddens, and E. R. Beaty.
1981. Corn yields as related to legumes and in-
organic nitrogen. Crop Sci. 21: 977-980.
4. Groya, F. L., and C. C. Sheaffer. 1985. Nitrogen
from forage legumes: Harvest and tillage effects.
Agron. J. 77: 105-109.
5. Hargrove, W. L., 1986. Winter legumes as a
nitrogen source for no-till grain sorghum.
Agron. J. 78: 70-74.
6. Hargrove, W. L., and W. W. Frye. 1987. The
need for legume cover crops in conservation
tillage production. In J. F. Power [ed.] The Role
of Legumes in Conservation Tillage Systems. Soil
Cons. Soc. Am., Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 1-5.
7. Kamprath, E. J., W. V. Chandler, and B. A.
Krantz. 1958. Winter cover crops. Tech. Bull
129. N. Car. Agr. Exp. Sta., Raleigh.
8. Locke, M. A., and F. M. Hons. 1988. Tillage
effect on seasonal accumulation of labeled fer-
tilizer nitrogen in sorghum. Crop Sci. 28:
694-700.
9. Mitchell, W. H., and M. R. Teel. 1977. Winter-
annual cover crops for no-tillage corn produc-
tion. Agron. J. 69: 569-573.
10. Nelson, D. W., and L. E. Sommers. 1980. Total
nitrogen analysis of soil and plant tissues. J.
Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 63: 770-778.
11. Touchton, J. T., W. A. Gardner, W. L. Hargrove,
and R. R. Duncan. 1982. Reseeding crimson
clover as a N source for no-tillage grain sorghum
production. Agron. J. 74: 283-287.
12. Vanderlip, R. L. 1979. How a sorghum plant
develops. Coop. Ext. Serv. Circ. No. 1203. Kan-
sas Agr. Exp. Sta., Manhattan. D
January-February 1990 127
-------
Spatial dimensions of farm
input intensity: A pilot study
Abram Kaplan and John Steinhart
ABST&4CT: County-level agricultural input and demographic data from the Census of
Agriculture were normalized and investigated through statistical and spatial analyses. State
bonlers and state-level data were found to be poor guides for policy. Mapping of input
criteria suggest strong regions of high- and low-input farm management practices,
(kmwistrating that an empirical knowledge of where input-intensive farms exist will enhance
one's ability to design and implement policies for low-input agriculture. Cluster analysis
results reiiiforce the notion that conventional regions of agriculture that rely strictly on
climate, geomorphology, and crop production are insufficient for assessing appropriate
policy targets toward improved farm management. Four-state results offer encouragement
for expanding an Integrated, data-based perspective to the entire United States.
AS low-input agriculture moves beyond
anecdote and theory into the main-
stream agriculture, many important ques-
tions arise. Among these are issues involv-
ing the tangle of present agricultural policy
and the potential for initiatives to encourage
sustainable agriculture.
First, what is meant by low-intensity or
low-input farm management? Are all inputs
to be considered? Because low is a com-
parative term, one might ask what "low" is
being compared to. Some consensus on the
definition of these concepts is clearly needed
in the development of public policy.
Second, where are the areas of high-input
and low-input farming, and what are their
characteristics? This question is especially
important for targeting new policy initiatives
designed to affect input intensity and to eval-
uate the effectiveness of current policies.
Our research acknowledges both ques-
tions by attempting to identify the high- and
low-input agricultural areas in four states.
It responds to the first question by using a
set of specifically identified farm produc-
tion costs as a measure of input intensity and
defines "low" relative to the mean of those
input levels in the four-state area using a per-
heciare normalized basis. The results deal
with the second question more specifically.
By illuminating both locational and manage-
ment characteristics for a range of intensity
in (arm operating practices, these analyses
offer a basis for the crucial aspects of policy
development, design, and analysis.
The importance of the spatial component
arises because of the differential patterns of
agriculture in the nation. Both the academic
and popular literature is besieged with var-
ious regions of agriculture, such as the corn
and wheat belts of the Plains and Midwest
Abram Kaplan ts a doctoral candidate in the In-
stitute for Environmental Studies and John Steinhart
It a prtJfeuor qfgeaplyslcs and environmental studies
tttxl eftair efllit Energy Analysis and Policy Program,
University of Wisconsin, Madison, 53706.
and the central valley in California. The
traditional system of policy "targeting"—
identifying the appropriate audience to ef-
fect change—categorizes farmers by com-
modity production, financial need, or the
assumption that all farms are essentially the
same. The commodity credit program ex-
emplifies the former two classes, while the
land buy-back system underscores the latter.
Advances in the speed and capacity of
microcomputers have made it possible to in-
tegrate a variety of measures of input use and
to generate actual maps of those areas that
have particularly intense farm management
practices. We used a definition of intensity
based on data from the Census of Agricul-
ture and then used the subsequent data to
delineate potential farm policy targets. If it is
possible to portray coherent regions of high-
input farming based on these indicators, then
it may be possible to understand the charac-
teristics of these areas and devise policies
to affect input intensity. So the basic ques-
tion we hope to answer is this: "Where are
the high-input farming regions in the United
States?"
The research presented here is from a
demonstration project to test the methods
and basic concepts involved in delineating
input-based regions. We use data disaggre-
gated to the county level as a compromise
between farm-by-farm information, which
is not available because of disclosure laws,
and state- or national-level data, which are
far too broad to be helpful in showing the
disparity of farm management practices
across the areas examined. Furthermore, as
we contend that policies targeted on the basis
of political boundaries, such as Census re-
gions or states themselves, are likely to be
inefficient, the use of state-level data would
lead quickly to circular arguments.
As described below, this initial study uses
data from four states: Wisconsin, Minne-
sota, California, and Oregon. These states
were chosen on the basis of a number of cri-
teria, including agricultural diversity, pair-
ing of contiguous boundaries, and wide-
ranging energy supply characteristics. The
extent to which the results from this project
prove viable will help determine whether an
expansion to the entire nation is merited.
While our research has included investiga-
tions of both input intensity and demo-
Average crop hectarage
Normalized to mean = 1.00
N = 247; Missing values averaged
Agricultural hectarage
mean = 1.00
Census of Agriculture, 1982
Cropland
Pasture
MN. Wl
Average Farm Size
Normalized to mean = 1.00
Census of Agriculture, 1982
Figure 1. Average crop hectarage, normalized to mean = 1.00.
128 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
graphic characteristics, this paper will
describe only the former component.
Study methods
Agricultural regions often are defined in
terms of climate, geomorphology, and crop
production. These regions do not reveal the
patterns of input intensity. The spatial ar-
rangements we seek are certainly related to
these characteristics, but they are not nec-
essary corollaries. Simply because the soil
is richer and the rainfall more consistent in
southern Wisconsin does not require that
farmers practice high-input farming there.
In fact, one might find more intense man-
agement in the Sierra Nevadas, where the
soil is poor, the climate harsh, and the slopes
steep; there, it might be impossible to pro-
duce crops or manage livestock without the
introduction of energy-intensive inputs.
Variables. The variables we examined
represent the basis for understanding pri-
mary agricultural intensity: machinery and
equipment, livestock feed, seeds, fertilizer,
chemicals, labor, and a variety of energy in-
puts for on-farm management. By the same
logic, we specifically ignored solar inci-
dence, precipitation, ground water levels,
soil structure, and topography. All of these
would no doubt prove important distinctions,
but they do not represent the direct human
impact on the environment or the likely
context for input reduction policy initiatives.
The U.S. Census of Agriculture includes
data that offer a rough surrogate for actual
input intensity. Instead of presenting actual
quantities consumed in fertilizer, energy, and
the like, producers are asked to report the
financial requirements for these production
costs. Thus, for each county, we have the
number of farms reporting each input cost
and the total amount of money spent by all
reporting farms for each input (Table 1).
Data manipulation. We conducted a
number of manipulations on the data to re-
duce obvious geographical biases and to in-
dicate intensify levels instead of actual finan-
cial outlays. What we wanted to show was
that farms in certain counties spend more
on their inputs than other counties, not that
farms in certain counties spend "X" dollars
while other counties spend "Y" dollars. The
absolute figures do not offer an estimate of
intensity, but the relative values do.
If we were to divide the dollar amount by
the number of farms reporting, we would
have a fair estimate of per-farm input costs.
But, as shown in figure 1, average farm size
in the Midwest is much smaller than in the
two western states; per farm estimates would
unduly bias the results. Likewise, we avoid-
ed using total county figures because coun-
ty sizes themselves tend to increase from
East to West. By multiplying the number of
Table 1. Mean and range of individual variables, U.S. Census of Agriculture, 1982.
Variable
STKPRPA
FDSTKPA
SPBTSPA
CMFRTPA
OTCHMPA
HRLBRPA
CTWRKPA
GASLNPA
DIESLPA
LPGASPA
ELECTPA
OTHERPA
EQPVLPA
INTRSPA
Description/Units
Expenses for
livestock
Expenses for feed
for livestock
Expenses for
seeds, plants,
trees, bulbs, etc.
Expenses for com-
mercial fertilizer
Expenses for
other chemicals
Expenses for
hired labor
Expenses for
custom-work (rent,
machine hire)
Expenses for
gasoline
Expenses for
diesel fuel
Expenses for LP
gas
Expense for
electricity
Expenses for
other energy
forms
Equipment value
Interest payments
Mean
($/ha)
137.34
155.13
34.91
47.99
33.36
155.47
23.77
15.74
20.81
18.90
17.35
4.57
480.83
120.80
Top
Counties
Imperial, CA
Fresno, CA
Tulare, CA
Imperial, CA
Riverside, CA
San Diego, CA
Orange, CA
Ventura, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
Imperial, CA
Riverside, CA
Hood River, OR
Santa Cruz, CA
Ventura, CA
Ramsey, MN
Santa Cruz, CA
San Mateo, CA
Riverside, CA
Imperial, CA
Fresno, CA
Hood River, OR
Santa Cruz, CA
Ramsey, MN
Ramsey, MN
Hood River, OR
Milwaukee, Wl
Tillamook, OR
Milwaukee, Wl
Ramsey, MN
Santa Cruz, CA
Riverside, CA
Ventura, CA
Ventura, CA
Washington, OR
Milwaukee, Wl
Hood River, OR
Ramsey, MN
Santa Cruz, CA
Riverside, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
Hood River, OR
Value
($/ha)
3,419.32
1 ,466.25
824.19
2,297.92
1,925.50
1,353.20
599.04
438.13
380.73
192.14
163.04
162.54
318.41
236.52
184.06
2,140.35
2,074.03
2,029.80
229.38
134.87
131.48
70.82
70.23
70.18
104.47
63.31
62.96
185.32
182.38
96.42
118.34
100.67
87.08
43.51
39.09
25.74
1 ,838.89
1 ,257.52
1,166.10
581 .84
429.18
414.90
Bottom Value
Counties ($/ha)
Ashland, Wl 8.33
Wheeler, OR 5.04
Wasco, OR 4.89
Gilliam, OR 5.36
Grant, OR 3.85
Wheeler, OR 1 .63
Wheeler, OR 0.78
Trinity, CA 0.32
Mariposa, CA 0.22
Inyo, Ca 1.04
Mariposa, CA 0.77
Trinity, CA 0.52
Wheeler, OR 1.31
Grant, OR 0.94
Trinity, CA 0.44
Inyo, CA 8.40
Harney, OR 8.28
Gilliam, OR 7.93
Inyo, CA 0.84
Wheeler, OR 0.64
Trinity, CA 0.47
Grant, OR 1 .75
Trinity, CA 1.73
Wheeler, OR 1 .06
Mariposa, CA 0.82
Wheeler, OR 0.79
Tuolumne, CA 0.72
Wasco, OR 0.30
Baker, OR 0.30
Gilliam, OR 0.12
Trinity, CA 1.01
Grant, OR 0.79
Wheeler, OR 0.59
Alameda, CA 0.00
Clatsop, OR 0.00
Curry, OR 0.00
Grant, OR 30.54
Inyo, CA 29.21
Wheeler, OR 18.95
Inyo, CA 10.82
Grant, OR 8.62
Wheeler, OR 6.38
the number of reporting farms by the aver-
age farm size per county for the generic in-
puts like electricity and machinery costs or
by the average hectarage devoted to specific
purposes for the variables clearly associated
with that purpose, we could establish dollar-
per-hectare values that would be far less sus-
ceptible to spatial autocorrelation difficulties.
It was also necessary to provide the basis
for assessing relative intensity among these
inputs instead of their absolute magnitude.
Thus, each variable was normalized by the
mean for the entire data set. (This has no
biasing influence on the statistical analyses.)
Thus, in the final matrix, a value of 1.00
for any given case represents an average in-
put level. For example, where Fresno, Cali-
fornia, is represented by the number 2.00
for commercial fertilizer costs, all we know
is that farms in this county spend an average
of twice as much on fertilizer per hectare
than the mean for all counties in the data
set. By that measure, Fresno might then be
described as a high-input fertilizer county;
those counties with values below 1.00, by
this rough definition, would then qualify as
low-input areas. We contend that geograph-
ic patterns that result from such transformed
intensity figures are a great deal more en-
lightening than those arising from spatially
autocorrelated data.
Methods. In addition to visual inspection
of maps portraying the spatial patterns of
each variable, a number of multivariate sta-
tistical methods could be applied to these
issues as well. We have found the combina-
tion of two common tools to provide a pow-
erful demonstration of the spatial potential
for agricultural policy targeting: factor anal-
ysis (using orthogonal principal compo-
nents, standard Varimax rotation, and Kai-
ser normalization procedures) and hierarchi-
cal cluster analysis (with squared Euclidean
distance measures and average between-
group linking for the actual clustering). The
cluster analytics component is essentially a
statistical corollary to the notion of overlays
in a cartographic or geographic information
system context. This is useful to identify the
interrelationship of a variety of variables
January-February 1990 129
-------
across their basic unit, in this case, counties.
All of these analyses were performed using
SPSS/PC+, version 3.0, on a 20MHz 80386-
bascd microcomputer.
Missing values. The four states studied
comprise 253 counties. Of these, six were
dropped from the sample due to insufficient
data: San Francisco, California (exclusive-
ly urban); Alpine, California (extremely
mountainous and sparsely populated), Me-
nominee, Wisconsin (Indian reservation);
Vilas, Wisconsin (wilderness and recreation
with little agriculture); and Lake and Cook
counties, Minnesota (mining areas along
with wilderness and recreation).
Three other counties were lacking farm
hcctarage data for use in the weighting
scheme: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Mono
and Inyo Counties, California. Hectarage es-
timates were made for these counties on the
basis of prorated averages from total farm
hcctarage information for those counties. We
are confident of the estimates for the two
California cases because enough ancillary
information was available for comparison;
the merit of including Wisconsin's most
urban county is less clear.
Additionally, a few counties lacked indi-
vidual entries for specific input variables.
The variable list itself was reduced to the
set used for this study because of the miss-
ing data problem, but a few essential varia-
bles involved a small number (less than 5%)
of missing values, which were estimated
through an area-weighted averaging algo-
rithm, A simple sensitivity analysis of these
averaging techniques suggests that the matrix
is not likely to be biased by filling a very
small number of missing values in this
this manner, and the calculation of overall
means for normalization is greatly facili-
tated. The final data set, then, includes 247
counties with no missing values.
Results and discussion
Figures 2 and 3 display a sample of the
computer-generated maps of the essential in-
put variables for normalized costs to farm
operators. Each map uses an objective scale,
which could be translated as follows: 0.0 to
0.5=very low intensity; 0.5 to 1.0=low in-
tensity; 1.0 to 1.5=high intensity; and 1.5
to X=very high intensity, where X is the
highest value listed. While each map is
unique, there are a number of common spa-
tial patterns worth noting; four of these are
discussed. Other variables show similar phe-
nomena.
The most obvious among these patterns
is the repeated dominance of the Central
Valley of California. In nearly every map,
this area stands out as the most intense con-
sumer of farm inputs, sometimes over-
whelming the data set and thereby reducing
almost all other counties to subaverage
levels. The core of this region appears to be
quite stable for these input variables, but the
border counties seem to "wander" in and
out of the very high-intensity category, de-
pending on the variable. Among the sam-
ple maps, diesel fuel per hectare portrays the
extreme of fewest counties included, while
chemical costs displays the most. Interest-
ingly, the eastern edge of the Central Valley
is consistent in every map, while the south-
ern and coastal counties shift. To some ex-
tent, this is endemic to the unit of analysis:
we used county-wide averages, which are
sure to produce generalized results.
A second common pattern in these maps
is the suggestion of divergent management
practices within the state of Oregon. While
the location of the exact break is not clear,
it appears that counties in the eastern two-
thirds of the state group into a generally
lower intensity category, while the western
third follows more intensive management
patterns. The area surrounding Portland in
the northwest corner of the state also prevails
as a very high-intensity region.
Moving to the Midwest, there is another
spatial theme: the consistent reduction in in-
tensity from south to north. Each input map
displays three tiers, usually beginning in the
southeastern area of Wisconsin with high-
intensity input costs, then crossing the sam-
ple average in the middle of the two states
to a very low-intensity region in the northern
extremes of Wisconsin along with the north-
ern third of Minnesota. In the case of both
diesel fuel and chemical costs, there is a
separation of the high-intensity region into
the southeastern corner of Wisconsin and the
southwestern corner of Minnesota. Other
maps, such as equipment value, bridge these
two areas, while labor costs remain very low
in all but the southeastern and middle parts
of Wisconsin.
Finally, across the majority of these maps
is a pattern of urban versus rural farm prac-
tices. In hired labor, electricity, diesel fuel,
and equipment value, the per-hectare costs
are particularly high in the areas near Mil-
waukee, Green Bay, Minneapolis/St. Paul,
Portland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.
One might expect these costs to be highest
when farm size is restricted by develop-
Hircd Labor Costs per hectare
Normalized to mean = 1.00
N m 247; Missing values averaged
Normalized Cost
O 0.0 to 0.5
m 0.5 to i.o
M 1.0 to 1.5
• 1.5 to 14.0
Fertilizer Costs per hectare
Normalized to mean = 1.00
N = 247; Missing values averaged
Normalized Cost
CH 0.0 to 0.5
• 0.5 to 1.0
M 1.0 to 1.5
• 1.5 to 5.0
Chemical Costs per hectare
Normalized to mean = 1.00
N = 247; Missing values averaged
Normalized Cost
cm o.o to 0.5
to 1.0
1.0 to 1.5
1.5 to 8.0
Figure 2. Hired labor costs, fertilizer costs, and chemical costs per hectare, normalized to mean = 1.00.
130 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
Diesel Fuel Costs per hectare
Normalized to mean = 1.00
N = 247; Missing values averaged
Normalized Cost
CH 0.0 to 0.5
0.5 to 1.0
1.0 to 1.5
1.5 to 6.0
Electricity Costs per hectare
Normalized to mean = 1.00
N = 247; Missing values averaged
Normalized Cost
0.0 to 0.5
0.5 to 1.0
1.0 to 1.5
1.5 to 7.0
Equipment Value per hectare
Normalized to mean = 1.00
N = 247; Missing values averaged
Normalized Cost
0.0 to 0.5
0.5 to 1.0
1.0 to 1.5
1.5 to 8.0
Figure 3. Diesel fuel costs, electricity costs, and equipment value, per hectare, normalized to mean = 1.00.
ment and where demand for nearby specialty
crops might be high. But the similarity of
urban areas to the Central Valley highlights
the intensity of that particular region and
points to the potential for targeting the area
for sustainable management.
From the point of view of policy initia-
tives, these maps are helpful. They can aid
in determining a program's effect on any in-
dividual input consideration. Unfortunate-
ly, low-input agriculture pertains to a com-
plex system of many different management
characteristics; looking at any individual in-
put while excluding the influence of others
is surely problematic. Therefore, we used
statistical means to discern spatial patterns
among the larger set of inputs, based on a
Pearson product-moment correlation matrix.
A cluster analysis of the 14 basic farm in-
puts, using either the "raw" normalized var-
iables or factor scores, provides a striking
composite of the individual maps (Figure 4).
Each of the spatial identities reappears with
a clarity not seen in figures 2 and 3. The
Central Valley appears solid, the Oregon
split well-defined, and the Midwest tiering
intact, with the exception of Onieda Coun-
ty, Wisconsin, which is not much of an agri-
cultural area, so its county per-hectare aver-
ages are based on a small number of farms.
The urban/rural dichotomy remains intact
for the western states, but seems to collapse
into the two most strongly urban midwestern
counties—Ramsey, Minnesota, and Milwau-
kee, Wisconsin—perhaps because of the
dominance of California's midsection in
overall intensity.
In addition to the specific geographic
identities, the input cluster result confirms
four broader hypotheses concerning the use-
fulness of substate data analysis: lack of ran-
domness, strong east-west bifurcation, in-
effectiveness of state boundaries, and co-
herent multicounty regions. Each of these
deserves brief elaboration.
When obvious geographical biases are
removed, one might expect to find a random
or illogical distribution of production costs
across the study area. If southern Califor-
nia appeared to be quite similar to northern
Minnesota, one would be hard-pressed to
reveal the underlying causes. Likewise, if
Wisconsin counties alternated intensity
levels from one end of the state to the other,
the implications would be rather uncertain.
The second theme extends from the first:
these maps demonstrate significant differ-
ences in farm input intensity between the
two pairs of states. Overall, the western
states prevail in nearly every case, mostly,
though not entirely, because of the Central
Cluster results for 14 Farm Inputs
Census of Agriculture, 1982
Squared Euclidean measure; Ward's method
Missing counties are indicated by speckle marks.
Range and forest
| | Poor farming
Midwest transition
Hfm Prime crop and dairy
^| High-intensity farming
Urban residual
Figure 4. Cluster results for 14 farm inputs.
January-February 1990 131
-------
Valley region. In only one cluster group is
there a considerable east-west overlap—the
Midwest transition, also seen in north-
western Oregon. In fact, these two areas are
quite similar in their climate, production
diversity, and management practices as well.
In general, a federal policy that targets all
farmers as identical to one another would
induce great inequities in these two pairs of
states. It is likely that the free-ridership
problem would only be magnified if the
analysis were extended to the entire nation.
Thirdly, a state-by-state targeting system
appears to be inappropriate, based on these
results. As figure 4 suggests, the two state
boundaries in our sample are completely in-
adequate for discerning one management
practice from another. The regions used by
the U.S. Bureau of the Census would divide
Minnesota and Wisconsin into two manage-
ment areas, west north central and east north
central, respectively, which appear to be in-
appropriate for farm production issues. The
Census regions were never intended to
represent a scientific division of the states,
yei many policy analysis studies use them
as if they provided rational boundaries.
Finally, and most importantly, these nor-
malized input values provide clear multi-
county, coherent regions. While some out-
liers are always anticipated, there are strik-
ingly few counties that isolate themselves
from those around them. The regions are
generally large enough to facilitate inter-
jurisdictional planning, but not so unwieldy
in their dimensions to undermine reasonable
and prudent decision-making.
Conclusions and future research
Our analysis has shown that statistically
and spatially significant regions exist for the
purposes of targeting farm input manage-
ment policies. The hypotheses of spatial ran-
domness or nonsystematic arrangement of
county-level farm intensity values were re-
jected outright. Furthermore, any suspicions
that these data are bounded by state lines
have been proven false. At least for the four-
state area studied, the evidence for county-
based, empirical regionalizations of agricul-
ture is quite powerful. Perhaps most impor-
tantly, this research demonstrates the poten-
tial for empirically delineating areas of in-
put intensity. Using data available in the
public domain and a low cost, self-sufficient
microcomputer, a decision-maker can readi-
ly learn of the current status of farming
operations across a wide area and can com-
pare input intensity with farm profitability
levels to determine the effect of input reduc-
tions on sales.
Further, these input-based regions can be
compared to other common foundations of
regionalization. We have investigated the
demographic characteristics of farm oper-
ators for the same four-state study area, and
our preliminary findings strongly corrobo-
rate the results presented here. By integrat-
ing area-source emissions data from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, we are
able to compare the role of various air pol-
lutants with the intensity of agricultural pro-
duction. We are also examining the respon-
siveness of regions based exclusively on in-
put intensity with those delineated by com-
modity distinctions, for example, inputs for
grain corn versus inputs for wheat. This
question requires considerable study. None-
theless, it is our contention that a commod-
ity-based regional targeting system would be
incapable of facilitating input reductions in
highly diverse areas, such as California's
Central Valley. With such a variety of com-
modities produced there, a policy that iden-
tifies each product separately would cause
an administrative nightmare beyond the dif-
ficulties of interjuristictional politics.
Clearly, this research is in its infancy;
there is much work still to be done. As we
find these results encouraging, it is appro-
priate to expand the data base to the entire
nation. There are a number of mathematical
improvements to be considered: normaliza-
tion changes, input-weighting alternatives,
and missing-value manipulation challenges.
Software improvements using the growing
area of geographic information systems also
offer considerable opportunities for further
study and development.
As agricultural policy issues become in-
creasingly complex, the need to identify
specific targets for effecting postitive change
will also expand. It is our hope that an in-
tegrated, data-based approach to policy de-
velopment and analysis can be useful in the
quest for environmental sustainability. D
Factors affecting farmers' use
of practices to reduce
commercial fertilizers
and pesticides
Paul Lasley, Michael Duffy, Kevin Kettner, and Craig Chase
ABSTRACT: A survey conducted among a statewide random sample of Iowa farm operators
explored the extent to which farmers rely upon a set of practices to reduce commercial
fertilizer and pesticide use. The analysis examines the relationship between farmers' use
of these practices with their opinions about low-input farming and their level of concerns
about the health and safety of modem agricultural practices. These dimensions are explored
by including selected sociodemographic characteristics of the operators in the analysis.
Implications for the adoption and diffusion of low-input farming are discussed.
ONE of the most pervasive trends in U.S.
agriculture has been the substitution
of purchased inputs for farm-produced in-
puts (/). The substitution of commercial fer-
tilizers and pesticides for animal manures
and cultural practices to control insects and
weeds has contributed to the increased re-
iance upon purchased inputs. Much of the
increase in farm productivity since World
War II is directly related to the use of com-
mercial fertilizers and pesticides. As a re-
sult, in the last half of the 20th century
Paul Lasley is an associate professor, Depart-
ment of Sociology; Michael Duffy is an associate
professor, Department of Economics; and Kevin
Kettner and Craig Chase are graduate research
assistants, Iowa State University, Ames, 50011.
Journal Paper No. J-13741 of the Iowa Agriculture
and Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames,
Iowa; project No. 2550.
there has been a steady growth in commer-
cial fertilizer and pesticide use. In 1988,
96% of the corn and soybean acreage in the
United States was treated with a herbicide
and 97% of the corn received a chemical fer-
tilizer treatment (11).
By the early 1980s, several unanticipated
consequences of the heavy reliance upon
chemical pest control and fertilizers began
to emerge that questioned the long-term sus-
tainability of modern agriculture. One of the
first unanticipated consequences was the de-
tection of agricultural chemicals in under-
ground water supplies. Several studies have
documented the incidence of pesticides and
fertilizers in aquifers and wells (7). The de-
tection of agricultural chemicals and fertil-
izers in groundwater raises serious concerns
about long-term effects on the environment.
132 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
A second issue closely related to the
chemical contamination of the environment
is the potential long-term health effects of
chemical exposure for producers and con-
sumers. The increased societal concerns
about the health risks of the presence of agri-
cultural chemicals in the food system has
recently been the subject of several national
media reports (10).
A third factor contributing to the re-exam-
ination of agricultural chemical use was the
farm crisis of the 1980s and the need for pro-
ducers to reduce production costs, par-
ticularly purchased inputs. In many cases,
methods to reduce production costs has in-
volved the substitution of farm-produced in-
puts for purchased inputs.
Alternative production systems
Because of the need to reduce production
costs, growing concerns about environ-
mental degradation, and the perceived health
risks of agricultural chemical exposure, pro-
ducers have become more receptive to alter-
native production systems (5, 8). For exam-
ple, in the 1983 Iowa Farm and Rural Life
Poll, 34% of the respondents ranked runoff
of pesticides and fertilizers as the single
most critical source of water pollution in the
state. In the same survey, 75% supported
diversifying Iowa agriculture by encourag-
ing alternative crops to be planted and
marketed (3). In the 1984 Iowa Farm and
Rural Life Poll, 47% of Iowa producers sup-
ported allocating additional government re-
search monies to assess the feasibility of
organic farming methods (4). While low-
input or sustainable agriculture is an ill-
defined concept, its commonly accepted ob-
jectives are to conserve natural resources,
minimize environmental impacts, enhance
human health, contribute to national food
goals, maintain long-term productivity, and
enhance rural communities (2).
Methods and procedures
Our research posits that farmer adoption
of low-input farming systems will be based
upon their perceived need to maintain and
protect the environment and whether they
hold positive opinions about low-input farm-
ing methods. In addition, we assumed pro-
ducer concern about the health and safety
risks of conventional agricultural chemicals
and fertilizers to be positively related to sup-
portive opinions toward low-input farming
systems.
Data for this analysis came from the Iowa
Farm and Rural Life Poll, an annual survey
of farm operators. Mail questionnaires were
sent to a statewide, random sample of 3,270
farm operators in February 1989. Forty-eight
questionnaires were returned by the post
office as nondeliverable. This analysis is
Table 1. Iowa farmers' use of selected farm practices to reduce commerciaf fertilizer and
pesticide use.
Do Not Limited Moderate Heavy
Use Use Use Use Mean Standard
Practice (1) (2) (3) (4) Score Deviation
n/
Crop rotation
Soil testing
Mechanical cultivation
Animal manure
Plant legumes
Do your own scouting
Integrated pest management
Use degree days
Employ prof, scouting service
Nonconventional products
Phermone traps for cutworms
2
6
2
21
11
10
41
48
85
78
91
vu
11 43
20
15
24
33
29
34
31
10
17
5
47
60
34
39
46
22
19
4
4
3
44
27
23
21
17
15
3
2
1
1
1
3.3
3.0
3.0
2.6
2.6
2.7
1.9
1.8
1.2
1.2
1.1
.73
.84
.68
1.00
.90
.86
.86
.83
.57
.56
.44
based upon 2,016 usable questionnaires, a
response rate of 63%. When the character-
istics of the respondents and their farm op-
erations are compared with the 1987 Iowa
census of agriculture, the survey provides
a good cross section of Iowa farm operators.
Reducing fertilizer and pesticides
The first objective was to examine the ex-
tent that fanners rely upon a set of accepted
practices to reduce the use of commercial
fertilizer and chemicals. Respondents were
asked, ' 'To what extent do you use the fol-
lowing practices to reduce commercial fer-
tilizer and pesticide use?" The response cat-
egories for the 11 practices included were:
1 = do not use; 2 = limited use; 3 = mod-
erate use; and 4 = heavy use.
Table 1 provides the distribution of re-
sponses to the set of practices that have been
rank-ordered to facilitate reading the table.
Forty-four percent of the respondents in-
dicated that they make heavy use of crop
rotations, and an additional 43 % make mod-
erate use of this practice. Twenty-seven per-
cent reported heavy use of soil testing, and
an additional 47% make moderate use of
this practice. Nearly one-fourth (23 %) of
Iowa producers reported heavy use of me-
chanical cultivation, and another 60% make
moderate use of this practice. Fifty-five per-
cent reported making moderate or heavy use
of animal manures. Legumes were used
either moderately or heavily by 56% of the
respondents. Scouting fields for insect, di-
sease, or weed problems is another means
to reduce chemical use. Sixty-one percent
reported they relied upon their own scouting
to a moderate or heavy degree. Only 5%
reported employing a professional scouting
service. One-fourth reported making mod-
erate to heavy use of integrated pest man-
agement. About one-fifth (21 %) indicated
that they made moderate to heavy use of
degree days. Nonconventional products and
pheromone traps were used only moderate-
ly or heavily by less than 5 % of the pro-
ducers.
To assess whether the 11 practices could
be combined into a summary scale, we per-
formed a reliability analysis. The Cronbach
alpha reliability coefficient for the 11 items
was .64, which is within acceptable limits,
indicating that the items would comprise a
statisically reliable scale. A score of 11 in-
dicates that the respondent does not use any
of the practices, whereas a score of 44
would indicate heavy use of all 11 practices.
The mean score on the scale was 24.4,
the median score was 24.0, and the stan-
dard deviation was 3.9 (Figure 1). From the
distribution of scores it is evident that the
farmers cannot be easily classified into
groups, but rather it appears that a majori-
ty of them uses several of these practices
to reduce commercial fertilizer and pesticide
use.
Opinions on low-input farming
Respondents were asked to provide their
opinions on seven attitudinal items designed
to assess their level of agreement about the
need for low-input farming methods. The
question was stated, "There is increasing
public concern, about the safety of some
modern agricultural practices. What is your
opinion on these statements?" Respondents
were asked to check a five-point scale that
ranged from strongly agree to strongly dis-
agree. Table 2 provides the responses to the
seven attitudinal items. More than three-
fourths (78%) of Iowa farmers agreed that
modern farming relies too heavily on in-
secticides and herbicides, and 76% agreed
that modern farming relies too heavily upon
chemical fertilizer. Sixty-nine percent
agreed that increased use of low-input farm-
ing practices would help maintain natural
resources. Fifty-six percent agreed with the
statement that farmers would use more low-
input farming methods if more research in-
formation was available. Less agreement
existed for the statement, "There is too
much attention about the harmful effects of
pesticides and too little about their bene-
fits." Fifty-two percent agreed with the
January-February 1990 133
-------
statement, 35% disagreed, and 14% were
uncertain. Farmers were divided about
whether the need for an adequate food sup-
ply limits the use of low-input forming.
Forty-five percent agreed with the statement,
27% were uncertain, and the remaining 27%
disagreed. Thirty percent agreed with the
statement, "There is too much concern
about food safety issues." However, the ma-
jority of farmers, 54%, disagreed that there
is too much concern about food safety
issues.
These seven attitudinal items were sub-
jected to a Cronbach's reliability test that
produced an alpha coefficient of .74, indi-
cating they could be combined into a sum-
mary scale. The scale ranged from 7, indi-
cating tow support, to 35, Indicating strong
support for low-input farming (Figure 2).
The average score on the summary scale was
24,2 and the median was 24.0, with a stan-
dard deviation of 4.7. Farmers' opinions ap-
proximate a near normal distribution. While
these data indicate that producers recognize
farming's heavy dependence upon chemi-
cals, support for low-input farming is widely
dispersed across the farm population.
Health and safety concerns
Respondents were asked to indicate on a
seven-point scale their level of concern about
the health and safety risks of four agricul-
tural practices (Table 3). The question posed
W the respondents was this, "How concerned
are you about the human health and food
safety concerns of the following practices?"
Thirty-nine percent indicated they are
very concerned about the aerial spraying of
pesticides, (a score of 6 or 7). The mean
score for this item was 4.9. Thirty-three per-
cent reported being "very concerned" about
the use of insecticides; the mean was 4.7.
About one-fifth (21%) indicated high level
of concern about the use of herbicides. Only
10% of the respondents rated the use of
chemical fertilizer as a high level of concern.
A Cronbach's reliability analysis was per-
formed that indicated the items could be
combined into a summary score. The alpha
coefficient of reliability was .79. The average
score on the summary scale was 17.2; the
median value was 17.0 (Figure 3). The range
on the summary scale was from 4, indicating
"no concern," to 28, if the respondent was
"very concerned" about each of the prac-
tices. The resulting distribution, while ap-
proximating a normal distribution, shows a
couple of interesting features. The spikes on
values 16 and 28 suggest that farmers are
moderately concerned and that approximate-
ly 6% indicated high concerns on each of
the four practices.
Who is concerned?
There is a wealth of social science re-
search on the importance of sociodem-
ographic variables in explaining farmer's
opinions and adoption of new technology
(9). Three prominent variables in adoption
research are the operator's age, education
level, and farm size. To assess whether these
variables were related to respondent's use of
practices to reduce agricultural chemicals
and fertilizer and their opinions about low-
input farming systems and to perceived
health and safety concerns, a one-way anal-
ysis of variance and zero-order correlation
were computed (Table 4).
Younger farm operators, defined as those
under 40 years of age, were more likely to
use the set of practices to reduce chemical
inputs than were older farmers (60 years or
older). The average score for farmers under
40 years of age was 25.3 compared to 23.5
for those operators over the age of 60. Us-
ing uncategorized data, zero-order correla-
tion coefficients were computed to assess the
direction and strength of the relationships.
The zero-order correlation between opera-
tor's age (using raw scores) and use of the
practices was r=-.17, indicating a modest
negative relationship between operator's age
and using these practices to reduce fertilizer
and pesticide use.
Operators' education was positively re-
lated to use of the practices to reduce chem-
ical inputs, although the relationship was
weak, (r=.06). Operators with less than a
high school education (less than 12 years)
were less likely to use the practices than
were operators with 4 or more years of post-
secondary education.
Farm size as measured by total cropland
acres was positively related to use of the
practices, although the relationship was
Vi-
10-
8-
6-
4-
2
0
Illlu.
II n IJ » IS W 17 U W JO 21 22 23 24 25 J6 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 43
Uvuo Summary Score High use
to-
e-
s'
4-
2
0
Figure 1. (left) Summary score of Iowa farmers' use of selected practices
to reduce commercial fertilizer and pesticide use.
Figure 2. (below, left) Summary score of Iowa farmers' opinion about
low-input farming.
Figure 3. (below, right) Summary score of Iowa farmers' concern about
the health and safety risk of selected agricultural practices.
12-i
10-
8-
e
. p 6 -
4
2
0
l-lil
? » 19 II It II 14 IS Vt « II » 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Favorable
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
wn»»»K Summary Score
134 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
Low concern
Summary Score
High concern
-------
Table 2. Iowa farmers' opinions on agricultural practices.
Practice
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Disagree Mean Standard
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Score Deviation
Modern farming relies too heavily upon insecticides
and herbicides • 40 38
Modern farming relies too heavily upon chemical
fertilizer 34 42
Increased use of low-input farming practices would
help maintain our natural resources 21 48
Farmers would use more low-input farming methods if
more research information was available 14 42
There is too much attention about the harmful effects
of pesticides and too little about their benefits* 14 38
The need for an adequate supply of food limits the
use of low-input farming practices on a commercial
basis* 8 37
There is too much concern about food safety issues* 6 24
"/O •
5 13 3 4.0 1.1
6 15 4 3.9 1.1
19 11 2 3.7 9.7
30 11 2 3.6 .93
14 23 12 2.8 1.3
27 21 6 28 11
14 36 19 3.4 1.2
"Reversed coded in computing scale.
weak (r=.08). Operators of farms greater
than 460 acres were somewhat more likely
to use the set of practices to reduce chemical
and fertilizer use than operators of farms
less than 140 acres. Operators of farms less
than 140 acres had a mean of 23.6 on the
reduction scale compared to 24.9 for
operators of 460 or more crop acres.
Operator age and education level were not
related to opinions about low-input farming
methods. However, there was a moderately
strong negative relationship between crop-
land acres and support for low-input farm-
ing. The zero-order correlation for this
relationship was —.25. Operators of farms
of less than 140 acres had a mean score of
25.7 compared to 22.6 for operators of
farms greater than 460 acres.
Farm operator age was positively related
to perceived health and safety concerns of
the four agricultural practices, although the
relationship was weak (r=.06). There was
a modest negative relationship between op-
erator education levels and health concerns
(r= -.08). Operators with 13 or more years
of formal education were less likely to
express concerns about health and safety of
agricultural practices than operators with
less than 12 years of education. Farmers
with less than 12 years of education had a
mean score of 18.1 on the health concern
scale compared to 16.5 for operators with
13 or more years of education.
Farm size as measured by total cropland
acres was negatively related to operators'
concerns about health and safety issues.
Larger farm operators were less concerned
about health and safety issues of the four
practices than were operators of smaller
farms. The mean score for operators of
farms less than 140 acres was 18.6 com-
pared to 15.9 for operators of farms greater
than 460 acres. The measure of association
between total cropland acres and health
concerns was —.19.
Figure 4 presents the correlations across
Table 3. Iowa farmers' concern about the health and safety of agricultural practices.
Wo
Practice
Aerial spraying of pesticides
Use of insecticides
Use of herbicides
Use of chemical fertilizer
Concern
1
3
3
4
10
2
5
6
11
19
Moderate
Concern
3
11
14
20
23
4
26
25
?8
27
5
16
19
16
11
Very
Concerned
6
17
17
11
4
7
22
16
10
6
Mean
Score
4.9
4.7
4.2
3.5
Standard
Deviation
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
Table 4. Mean scores of farmers' use of reduction practices, assessments of low-input
farming, and health concerns by selected socioeconomic variables.
Socioeconomic Variable
Operators' age
Under 40
41-50
51-60
Over 60
Operators' education
Less than 12 years
12
13-15
16 or more
Total cropland (acres)
Under 140
141-270
271-460
460 or more
Reduction
Practices
25.3
24.6
24.4
23.5
F-ratio* 15.45f
r§=-.17f
23.8
24.3
24.7
24.8
F-ratio 3.2#
r = .06#
23.6
24.3
24.9
24.9
F-ratio 10.95f
r = .08#
•Support
for Low-
Input Farming
23.8
24.2
24.3
. 24.4
F-ratio 1.66 NSt
r=.05 NS
24.6
24.3
23.9
24.0
F-ratio 1.33 NS
r= -.03 NS
25.7
24.3
23.9
22.6
F-ratio 37.05f
r= -.25f
Health
Concerns
16.2
17.9
17.2
17.3
F-ratio 6.90f
r = .06f
18.1
17.4
16.5
16.5
F-ratio 7.39f
r= -.08f
18.6
17.1
16.9
15.9
F-ratio 27.6f
r=-.19t
The appropriate statistical test to assess the difference in mean scores is the F-ratio that permits
one to determine if the differences among the means are statistically significant (6).
t Statistically significant at p < .01.
i NS = Nonsignificant.
§ In addition, using uncategorized interval data a Pearson zero-order correlation was computed
as a measure of association between the variables. This measure can vary from -1.0 indicating
a perfect negative relationship to +1.0 indicating a perfect positive relationship. Thus the
measure provides the relative strength as well as the direction of the relationship
# Statistically significant at p < .05.
the three composite scales. Supportive opin-
ions about low-input farming do not appear
to be associated with use of the practices to
reduce chemical inputs (r=.05). The ab-
sence of a strong positive relationship be-
tween these scales suggests that producers
are using these practices independent of
their opinions about low-input farming.
Concerns about health and safety of agri-
cultural practices were positively related to
use of the practices to reduce chemical use
(r=.10). This finding suggests that use of
low-input, sustainable practices are mod-
estly related to perceived health and safety
January-February 1990 135
-------
risks of agricultural practices.
A strong positive association exists be-
tween perceived health and safety concerns
and support of low-input farming (r=.57).
Concern about health and safety issues of
agricultural practices were strongly related
to favorable opinions about the need for low-
input farming methods.
Summary and conclusions
We argue that support for low-input farm-
ing is based upon farm operators' concern
about environmental degradation and per-
ceptions about the health and safety of ag-
ricultural practices. Our examination of the
extent to which Iowa fanners use a set of
practices to reduce commercial fertilizer and
pesticide use showed that it is difficult to
categorize farmers on the basis of the set of
practices they use. Contrary to some who
view producers as representing either the
low-input or conventional farmers, the data
suggests that use of practices to reduce agri-
cultural chemical use are normally distrib-
uted across the farm population. Thus, it
may be more fruitful to view the use of these
reduction prctices as representing a con-
tinuum rather than discrete types of users.
In addition, while support for low-input
farming methods was positively related to
use of the practices to reduce chemical and
fertilizer use, the relationship was weak.
The data show that producers are con-
cerned about the health and safety risks of
modern agricultural practices, and these
concerns are strongly related to supportive
opinions about low-input farming.
A third conclusion from these data is the
relative unimportance of operator age and
education in explaining either use of prac-
tices to reduce chemical use, opinions about
low-input farming, or concerns about health
risks.
Farm size as measured by total crop acres
is important in explaining fanners' use of
reduction practices, opinions about low-in-
put farming systems, and perceptions of
health risks posed by some modern agricul-
tural practices. Larger farm operators are
somewhat more likely to use the set of prac-
tices to reduce chemical use but were less
likely to hold supportive opinions about low-
input farming and were less concerned about
the adverse health risks posed by modern
fanning practices than operators of smaller
farms. Perhaps this is because larger farmers
have already implemented many of the prac-
tices that lead them to be less supportive of
low-input farming. Nevertheless, among all
Iowa farmers there appears to be consider-
able support for pursuing low-input farm-
ing methods, and much of this support
appears to be related to producer concerns
about health and safety.
The findings provide strong evidence that
Iowa farmers recognize the heavy depen-
dence of farming upon commercial fertilizer
and pesticides. Further, there appears to be
strong support among farmers to pursue re-
search and generate information to assist
farmers in using low-input farming systems.
Finally, it appears that more efforts need
to be devoted to gaining fanners' acceptance
and use of existing recommended practices
to reduce fertilizer and chemical use. For
example, 26 % of the respondents reported
Opinions About
Low-Input Farming
Systems
Health Concerns
Use of Practices to
Reduce Fertilizer and
Pesticides
" statistically signilicanl at p - .01
that they either do not use or make limited
use of soil testing. Eleven percent do not
plant legumes, and another one-third make
limited use of legumes in their farming op-
erations. Future research should focus on
factors or barriers preventing farmers from
using the accepted and generally recom-
mended practices that can reduce chemical
and fertilizer use. More research on the
factors preventing farmers from using these
accepted practices may well be the first step
toward the transition to a low-input, sustain-
able agriculture.
The future success of low-input, sustain-
able farming systems depends upon farmers'
capacities to manage complex agronomic
systems. A common thread across the liter-
ature on low-input farming systems is the
higher level of management skills that are
required to minimize inputs. The capacity
of farmers to manage such systems may be
the limiting factor in making progress toward
a low-input farming system. The transition
to low-input farming systems will require
that technical and human factors be closely
integrated.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Cochrane, Willard W. 1979. The development of
American agriculture, A historical analysis.
Univ. Minn. Press, Minneapolis.
2. Duffy, Michael. 1989. Economic consideration
in low-input sustainable agriculture. Dept.
Econ., Iowa State Univ., Ames.
3. Lasley, Paul. 1983. The Iowa farm and rural life
poll summary. Pm-1130. Coop. Ext. Serv. Iowa
State Univ., Ames.
4. Lasley, Paul. 1984. The Iowa farm and rural life
poll summary. Pm-1178. Coop. Ext. Serv. Iowa
State Univ., Ames.
5. Lasley, Paul, and Gordon Bultena. 1986. Farm-
ers' opinions about third-wave technologies.
Am. J. Alternative Agr. 1 (summer): 122-126.
6. Loether, Herman!., and Donald G. McTavish.
1974. Inferential statistics for sociologists, An
introduction. Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston,
Mass.
7. Nielsen, Elizabeth G., and Linda K. Lee. 1987.
The magnitude and costs of groundwater con-
tamination from agricultural chemicals: A
national perspective. Agr. Econ. Rpt. 576. Econ.
Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C.
8. Padgitt, Steve. 1990. Farmers' view on ground-
water quality: Concerns, practices and policy
preferences. Office Tech. Assessment, Wash-
ington, D.C.
9. Rogers, Everett M. 1983. Diffusion of
innovations. The Free Press, New York, N.Y.
10. Time magazine. 1989. Is anything safe? March
27:13.
11. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1989. Agricul-
tural resources, situation and outlook. AR13.
Econ. Res. Serv., Washington, D.C. D
This Publication
is available in Microform.
University Microfilms
International
300 North Zeeb Road. Dept. P.R.. Ann Arbor, Mi, 48)06, ..
Figure 4. Correlations across the three composite scales.
136 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
Sustainable production from
the Rough Fescue Prairie
Johan F. Dormaar and Walter D. Willms
ABSTRACT: Native prairie communities have evolved to produce relatively low but sus-
tained production. Demand for greater production has resulted in overgrazing and, con-
sequently, lower and more unstable annual yields and increased risk of soil erosion. Because
the Rough Fescue Prairie is best suited for grazing, studies were made to determine its
carrying capacity and assess the effects of overgrazing. Overgrazing resulted in an in-
crease in plant species that were shallow-rooted and less productive, but more resistant
to grazing. This was associated with higher soil temperatures and reduced infiltration.
Consequently, the soil was transformed to one characteristic of a drier microclimate. Soil
color changed from black to dark brown as stocking rate increased from light to very heavy.
Grazing caused a redistribution of nitrogen in the soil by concentrating a greater propor-
tion in a shallower Ah horizon. Productivity deteriorated rapidly with overgrazing, but
more than 20 years of drastically reduced stocking rates are required to enable recovery.
RANGELANDS are unsuited to cultiva-
tion because of such physical limita-
tions as low and erratic precipitation, rough
topography, poor drainage, and cold temper-
atures (18). Instead, rangelands are a source
of forage for free-ranging native and domes-
tic animals. In many areas, rangelands are
also a source of wood products, water, and
recreation. Native prairie represents a major
forage-producing component of rangelands.
In Canada, there are 13.6 million ha (33.6
million acres) of native prairie. Of these, 6.5
million ha (16.1 million acres) are in Alber-
ta. About 13% of Alberta's native prairie is
classified as the Rough Fescue-Prairie asso-
ciation, with the majority being in the Foot-
hills.
The Rough Fescue Prairie historically has
been the home of many animal species, the
most conspicuous of which was the plains
bison (Bison bison bison Linnaeus). It is
believed that bison used this prairie for their
wintering grounds (16) by taking advantage
of the relatively good quality grass and the
presence of warm chinook winds that en-
sured access to it by eliminating snow cover.
Although information is scarce, it appears
that mankind's first attempt to manage the
prairie resource involved burning the range
to eliminate excess litter as a means of at-
tracting bison into an area for hunting. This
was likely done in the fall or spring, while
plants were dormant and the herbage flam-
mable.
The native people lived off the land and
existed by not exceeding the land's produc-
tion capabilities. Although production was
low, their subsistence was assured until the
arrival of European settlers in the 1800s.
With the introduction of livestock and the
Johan F. Dormaar is a soil scientist and Walter
D. Willms is a range ecologist at the Agriculture
Canada Research Station, Lethbridge, Alberta T1J
4B1. This article is LRS contribution no. 3878947.
plow, production took on a new meaning;
management could best be defined as exploi-
tation when settlers removed buffers that had
previously allowed stable production. The
result was a fluctuating boom-and-bust cycle
that depended on current moisture condi-
tions.
The prolonged drought in the 1920s and
1930s and the inability to farm on a viable
scale due to the short growing season and
the unevenness of the terrain caused many
settlers to abandon the land. These circum-
stances ensured that the primary agricultural
value of the Rough Fescue Prairie would be
for livestock grazing. However, without
proper knowledge of its carrying capacities,
much of the grassland was overgrazed and
deteriorated. Science has allowed the return
to sustained production, but at a higher level
of efficiency than was achieved by either the
native people or European settlers.
The Rough Fescue Prairie in western
Canada is found on highly productive soils,
but cultural practices are limited by steep
terrain. Consequently, management of grass-
land vegetation is through management of
grazing by cattle (23). This is normally ac-
complished using a continuous grazing sys-
tem where the cattle are turned onto the
range in spring and removed in autumn. The
most critical management decision is to de-
termine a stocking rate so that livestock pro-
duction per unit area of rangeland is maxi-
mized while the forage resource is main-
tained over time.
Jenny (9) suggested that soil is a function
of an initial state represented by parent ma-
terial and topography, by the age of the sys-
tem, and by influx variables represented by
climate and the biotic factor. Because soils
are, therefore, dynamic natural bodies, the
physical presence of domestic animals, to-
gether with the concomitant changes in the
range vegetation, will act upon and affect
the soil resource. Herein, we describe the
historical nature of productivity on the
Rough Fescue Prairie and examine some
buffering processes that allow stable and
sustainable biomass production.
Study methods
The study, located at the Agriculture
Canada substation in the Porcupine Hills
near Stavely, Alberta, began in 1949 to
determine the carrying capacity of the
Rough Fescue Prairie. Four fields, with a
permanent exclosure [0.5 ha (1.2 acres)] in
each to provide a control, were fenced to
enclose areas of 65, 49, 32, and 16 ha (160,
120, 80, and 40 acres) (23). Each field was
stocked with 13 cow-calf pairs from mid-
May to mid-November in each year of the
study to the present (1989). This resulted in
fields stocked at four different rates: light,
1.2 animal unit months (AUM)/ha (0.49
AUM/acre); moderate, 1.6 AUM/ha (0.65
AUM/acre); heavy, 2.4 AUM/ha (0.98
AUM/acre); and very heavy, 4.8 AUM/ha
(1.95 AUM/acre).
The very heavily stocked field supported
4.8 AUM/ha until 1959. While stocking with
13 cow-calf pairs continued in the follow-
ing years, declining forage productivity ne-
cessitated removing the cattle at various
times since then. Grazing in that field was
terminated when the cows began losing
weight, which occurred when use of avail-
able forage was about 80%. Consequently,
after 1960 the stocking rate on the very heav-
ily stocked field varied from 2.5 to 4.8
AUM/ha and averaged 3.2 AUM/ha; the
planned stocking rate was achieved only
twice, in 1972 and again in 1989.
The topography of the site is undulating,
varying in elevation from 1,280 to 1,420 m
(4,200 to 4,658 feet) above sea level. The
climate is dry subhumid with a mean annual
precipitation of 550 mm (21.6 inches). The
pedon has been classified as Orthic Black
Chernozemic or Argic Cryoboroll fine,
montmorillonite developed on till overlying
sandstone (2). Table 1 describes this soil.
The vegetation is typical of the Rough
Fescue Prairie association (13), with rough
fescue (Festuca campestris Rydb.) represent-
ing about 44% basal area of vegetation and
Parry oat grass (Danthonia parryi Scribn.)
about 23 %; the balance is comprised of an
assortment of grasses, forbs, and shrubs
(Table 2).
Results and discussions
Effects of grazing. The greater stocking
rate resulted in increased forage use (Table
2), which resulted in increased grazing
pressure. This corresponded to a reduction
in range condition and an increase in graz-
ing-resistant species that were shorter, less-
January-February 1990 137
-------
productive, and shallow-rooted. Rough fes-
cue was replaced by Parry oat grass, blue-
bunch fescue Festuca idahoensis Elmer),
wheat grass (Agropyron spp.), and June
grass (Kofleria cristata (L.) Pers.). Pro-
longed heavy grazing pressure resulted in a
cover of weedy species, including pasture
sage (Artemisia frigida Willd.), locoweed
[Oxtropis campesiris (L.) DC.], pussy-toes
(Antennaria spp.), and dandelion (Tbrax-
aann officinale Weber) (25). Bare ground
increased from zero to 15% on the very
heavily grazed range (14). The effect on an-
nual production was a shift from stability at
a reasonably high level of about 2,000 kg/ha
0,780 pounds/acre) to one that was closely
linked with current precipitation and, there-
fore, highly variable and, on average, only
about 50% of maximum (Table 2).
Vegetation changes led to a reduction of
organic matter and a loss of soil structure,
which contributed to surface sealing, re-
duced infiltration rates (Table 3), and, pre-
sumably, increased evaporation. The net ef-
fect was reduced soil water (70, 11, 17). Not
only did evaporation increase but there was
also less snow catch. Overtime, this caused
the character of the soil to change to that of
a drier microclimate associated with warmer
temperatures in the summer (Table 3) and
a change in soil color in the Ah horizon. Soil
color (dry) changed from black (10YR 2/1)
under light grazing, to very dark gray (10YR
3/1) under moderate grazing, to dark grayish
brown (10YR 3/2) under heavy grazing, and
to dark brown (IOYR 3/3) under very heavy
grazing (22). The change in soil color was
correlated with a change in soil organic mat-
ter from 11.1% under light grazing to 9.7 %
under very heavy grazing over 20 years
(Table 3). Evidence of this transformation
also was observed on a nearby range that
was managed with a short-duration grazing
system (5). Over a 5-year period, grazing
that removed about 80 % of available forage
resulted in a change in color from SYR 2/1
to SYR 2/2-3/2 (dry), suggesting either a
loss of organic matter or differential rates
of accumulation.
Areas that are predominantly in grassland
generally are designated as having limited
potential for severe erosion (1). This leaves
the perception that native prairie cannot
erode, no matter how badly overgrazed it
is. However, livestock activity can affect the
water-intake characteristics of the soil (11)
by removing cover and by compacting the
soil. Provided the soil was covered by veg-
etation, type of cover had little influence on
water-intake rate. However, as grazing in-
tensity increased, water intake decreased.
Water-holding capacity, representing field
water capacity plus the water held in organic
matter, of undisturbed cores was lower in
heavy grazing treatments than in light graz-
ing treatments (14). The consequence of re-
duced infiltration and water-holding capaci-
ty was increased runoff. Soil erosion by
water began when about 15 % of the soil sur-
face became bare (11, 14). This condition
was present only in the very heavily stocked
field and appeared to reduce the depth of
Table 1. Pedon description of the Orthic Black Chernozemic soil at the Agriculture Canada
Substation, Stavely, Alberta (4).
Horizon
Ah,
Thickness (cm)
14 to 20
8 to 21
12 to 20
Description
Black (10YR 2/1, moist) clay loam; moderate fine
granular; soft, very friable; mildly acidic.
Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4, moist) clay loam; weak,
fine subangular blocky; neutral.
Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4, moist) loam to clay
loam; moderate coarse, prismatic to subangular blocky;
firm; neutral.
Ck
Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4, moist) with very pale brown
(10YR 8/3, moist) clay loam; angular blocky; friable;
strongly effervescent; mildly alkaline.
Table 2. Long-term effects of grazing at fixed stocking rates on species composition (per-
cent of basal area) in the Rough Fescue Prairie and on forage production and use (22, 23).
Stocking rate (AUM/ha)
Species composition
Gramlnolds
Parry oat grass
Idaho loscue
Rough fescue
Other gramlnolds
Forbs
Shrubs
Available forage (kg/ha)
0
80.1
23.4
5.0
43.8
5.1
11.6
8.3
—
1.2
72.3
24.5
5.2
37.7
2.2
18.5
9.2
2199
1.6
, . .
66.8
32.7
5.6
20.7
4.0
20.4
12.8
2171
2.4
76.6
48.0
12.5
7.9
2.1
18.0
5.4
1865
4.8"
62.7
35.3
11.9
2.5
3.3
31.8
5.5
1170
'This rate was achieved until 1959, but was variable thereafter.
the Ah horizon by 4 cm (1.6 inches) (4).
Water infiltration is influenced by bulk
density, which is affected by large animals
that exert physical pressure on the soil by
their weight (8). The effect of animals on
bulk densities is also a function of stocking
rate, which describes the frequency and
duration of impact. On the Rough Fescue
Prairie, bulk densities in the surface 0 to 10
cm (0 to 4 inches) increased from about
0.75 Mg/m3 in the exclosures within each
field to 0.83 Mg/m3 in the lightly grazed
field and 0.90 Mg/m3 under heavy grazing
(Table 4) (14). However, frost action over
winter had an ameliorating effect (5, 19).
Increasing the grazing pressure caused an
increase in the excreta load which, together
with increased bulk densities and decreased
water-intake characteristics, has serious
ramifications for water quality. Total nitro-
gen (N) content (in percent) increased with
very high grazing pressure even though total
N in the Ah horizon remained the same
(Table 3). Total N was less mineralizable
and potentially not as available but more
acid-hydrolyzable at the very high stocking
rates. This means that a redistribution of the
N within the system occurred (4). The in-
creased excreta loads affect soil and water
quality in processes that are complex and
still not well understood.
Denitrification losses have been more
pronounced in undergrazed than in over-
grazed grassland soils (7), possibly due to
cooler temperatures (5,12) and more water
present (11, 12) in the former soils. Plant
species that increase or invade as a conse-
quence of overgrazing tend to produce root
extracts that inhibit nitrification (15).
Nitrification may be a mechanism whereby
these plants conserve the low amounts of N
available in grassland soils'.
Persistent trampling affects the physical
and chemical characteristics of soil over an
entire field (5) but also on microsites within
a field (21). To maintain plant vigor and to
allow carryover in the following year, range
is stocked season-long at a moderate rate.
This leads, however, to the formation of
patches where intensive trampling on micro-
sites also increases bulk densities (21).
Higher bulk densities were found on paths
(0.92 Mg/m3) than in grazed (0.89 Mg/m3,
P>0.05) areas (14). Further, soil organic
matter, carbohydrates, and depth of the Ah
horizon were greater (P>0.05) in under-
grazed patches, while urease activity, nitrate
N, ammonium N, and available phospho-
rus were greater (P>0.05) on overgrazed
patches (Table 4). This confirmed earlier
field-based conclusions.
Although the effects of livestock on range-
land are dramatic and highly visible, native
animals also have contributed to the erosion
138 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
potential. Prior to the settlement of the
prairies, terrifying flashfloods often led to
abrupt rises of streams and quick inunda-
tion of lowlands. This was blamed, at the
time, on the vast herds of bison that trampled
the ground until it was impervious to water
(3). Presently, the greatest impact may be
from pocket gophers (Thomomys talpoides
talpoides Richardson) that have markedly
influenced the development of rangeland
soils during the thousands of years they have
inhabited North America (20). However,
unlike the bison, which have long since
disappeared from the prairies, even the
pocket gopher is influenced by livestock ac-
tivity. Together, they compound the erosion
problem.
Soil movement as a result of gopher ac-
tivity within the study area was examined
by Shantz (17). On areas that were suitable
for pocket gophers in each of the four fields,
soil displacement increased with the degree
of grazing. Soil displacement was three
times as great in the very heavily grazed
field as in the heavily grazed field and seven
times as great as in the lightly grazed field.
That is, soil displacement on areas of poor
range, as defined by Johnston and associates
(72), was double that of good range and six
times that of excellent range.
Soil temperatures also correlated with the
activity of pocket gophers. More than four
times more soil was displaced on sites hav-
ing high soil temperatures (16 °C in June)
than on sites having moderate temperatures
(13 °C) or less (17). Although gophers may
not be attracted to warmer soil temperatures
per se, their presence indicates sites that are
drier and that have less dead vegetation and
more palatable regrowth. Soil disturbance
by the pocket gopher exacerbated soil creep
on slopes caused by tramping by livestock
(19).
Grazing effects are imposed either on a
short or long term, and their duration, after
corrective action is taken, may be described
similarly. Retrogression in the composition
of plant species, caused by overgrazing oc-
curs rapidly, but succession, following rest
from grazing, is slow (23). The rate of retro-
gression and succession depends upon the
plant species and grazing pressure. Rough
fescue began to decline immediately after
imposing very heavy grazing pressure and
was nearly eliminated after 5 years, while
range condition reached a minimum after 13
years (23). Succession of the plant com-
munity to a near climax state required more
than 20 years of rest (23).
While vegetation responds rapidly to graz-
ing, the soil response is delayed because at
least some effect is through the plant. How-
ever, soil effects were noted 18 years after
very heavy grazing pressure was imposed
Table 3. Effects of long-term, fixed stocking rates on the physical and chemical propertie
of soil on the Rough Fescue Prairie (4, 12, 14, 17).
Stocking rates (AUM/ha)
Soil Property
Bulk density (Mg/m3
0 to 10 cm depth)
Infiltration rate
(cm/hr, 0 to 1 min.)
Soil loss (kg/ha)f
Temperature (°C,
15 cm depth in June)
Water (% of dry
soil in June)
Organic matter (%)
Total N (% in Ah horizon
Total N (t/ha in Ah horizon)
Mineralizable N
fcg/g of soil)
Hydrolyzable N
(% of total N)
0
0.75at
132°
—
—
—
—
0.93a
12.96
73.9°
74.9a
1.2
0.83b
103bo
54
11a
53C
11. 7s
0.94a
12.94
66.2b
82.5b
2.6
0.80b
96b
16
12a
4gbc
11. 2a
—
—
—
—
2.4
0.83b
76ab
16
13a
42b
10.7a
—
—
—
—
4.8'
0.90°
56a
1,219
16b
32a
9.7a
1.10b
13.07
49.8a
85.0b
..no ,alo wao a^mcvcj until 1959, but was variable thereafter.
tMeans within a row followed by the same letter do not differ significantly (P > 0.05); means without
letters were not analyzed statistically.
tBased on simulated rainfall at a rate of about 8.5 cm/hr.
(12). A stable minimum level of soil quali-
ty or an estimate of recovery has not been
made, although new evidence obtained from
a study of abandoned cropland indicates that
more than 75 years are required for recov-
ery of some chemical constituents (6).
The cost of overgrazing must be evaluated
over the long term, for which evidence is
only speculative. Strictly in terms of beef
production per unit area, greatest yields
were obtained with maximum use, although
individual animal gains and forage produc-
tivity declined (22). However, overgrazing
reduced management stability as forage pro-
duction became more closely linked with
current precipitation. Consequently, forage
production became unpredictable and re-
liance on preserved forages increased. With
continued heavy grazing pressure, reduced
productivity and increased instability are
likely to increase over the long term as soils
Table 4. Soil characteristics on overgrazed
and undergrazed patches on Rough Fescue
Prairie (21).
Soil
Characteristic Overgrazed
Organic matter
(%)
Carbohydrate
(mg/g)
Urease activity (g
N/kg)
Nitrate N (mg/kg)
Ammonium N
(mg/kg)
Available P
(mg/kg)
Ah (depth, cm)
11.48
5.30a*
0.16b
10.01b
8.46"
6.04b
16.10a
Undergrazed
13.13b
6.69b
0.1 4a
5.1 4a
5.14a
3.85a
22.40b
"Paired means with the same letter do not dif-
fer significantly (P> 0.05).
continue to degrade.
The cost of overgrazing may be evaluated
as the reduction in forage and, subsequent-
ly, animal production. But this does not take
into account the cost of destroying the
watershed or wildlife habitat. One approach
in assessing the cost to agriculture only is
to determine the reduction in stocking rate
necessary to bring the range back to a con-
dition that will support the various re-
sources. With the assumption that optimum
resource exploitation will occur near the
climax state of the community, stocking
rates can be set to achieve that goal (24).
Consequently, the stocking rate on degraded
range will be reduced, depending on the
degree of degradation, and the cost of
recovery, determined as the cost of pro-
viding alternate forage. For the Rough
Fescue Prairie, a 50% reduction in stock-
ing rate will be required to allow recovery
from a degraded condition to an acceptable
one (24). Although stocking may be in-
creased gradually over time, more than 20
years will be required before the optimum
rate is reached.
Conclusions
The physical presence of domestic ani-
mals, with the additional excreta load and
effects on range vegetation, acts upon and
affects the soil resource in a manner that is
often detrimental. Because of increased bare
ground and bulk densities and reduced water
intake, anthropogenic erosion, which is ex-
acerbated by pocket gopher activity, In-
creases while the Black Chernozemic soil
acquires characteristics associated with soils
of a drier microclimate. Consequently, the
quality of soil deteriorates, as does the
January-February 1990 139
-------
quality of water in terms of storage and
loading of sediments and nutrients. A stock-
ing rate of 1.6 AUM/ha is certainly worth
considering for the Rough Fescue Prairie
because that rate maintains soil quality, pro-
ductivity, and economic returns.
Despite a switch from native to domestic
animals, properly managed range can sus-
tain agricultural productivity and conserve
related resources. Plants should not be
grazed too early in spring when they are
mobilizing resources for growth. Grazing
should remove only about 50% of current
production to avoid removing stored energy
in the stem bases and to allow for carryover
into the next year. The carryover not only
provides emergency forage but, more impor-
tantly, sustains the nutrient status and hy-
drological properties at an optimum level,
thereby stabilizing annual production.
REFERENCES CITED
I. Agriculture Canada - Alberta Agriculture. 1986.
Potential for Hind erosion map in southern
Alhtrto I9S& Edmonton, Aha.
2. Cannon, M.S. 1983. Estimating range produc-
tion from thiekness ofmollic epipedon and other
soil or site characteristics. M.Sc. thesis. Mont.
Suue Univ., Bozcman.
3. Connell, E. S. 1984. Son of the morning star.
North Point Press, San Francisco, Calif.
4. Domtaar, J. F., S. Srooliak, and W. D. Willms.
1989. Vegetation and soil responses to short-
tlumtimigrating on Fescue grassland.'!. J. Range
Manage, 42: 252-256.
5, Dormaar, J. F., S. Smoliak, and W. D. Willms.
1990. Distribution of nitrogen fractions in
grazed and itnsrazfd fescue grassland Ah
TloriyHU, J. Range Manage. 43: 6-9.
6. Donroar, J. F., S. Smoliak, and W. D. Willms.
1990. Sail chemical properties during succes-
sion from abandoned cropland to native range.
J. Range Manage. 43: 6-9.
7, Gould, W, D. 1982, Denitrijication in Alberta
soils. In LJ.L. Scars, K. K. Krogman, and T.
G. Atkinson [cds.] Research Highlights -1981.
Agri, Can. Res. Sia., Lcthbridge, Alia. pp. 67-68.
&. Heady, H, F. 1975. Rangeland management.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y.
9, Jenny, H. 1980. The soi7 resource: Origin and
behanor, Springcr-Verlag, New York, N.Y.
W. Johnston, A, ml. Comparison of lightly grazed
and ungrayd range in the fescue grassland of
southwestern Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 41:
615-622.
11, Johnston, A. 1962. Effects of grazing intensity
and cover on the \mter-intake rale of fescue
grassland, J. Range Manage. 15: 79-82.
12, Johnston, A.. J. F. Dormaar, and S. Smoliak.
1971. Long-term grazing effects on fescue
grasstwtd soils. J. Range Manage. 24: 185-188.
13. Moss. E. H., and J. A. Campbell. 1947. Tlie
Jeawegrassleitttl of Alberta. Can. J. Res. C 25:
M. N«3h, M. A. 1988. The impact of grazing on
litter ami hydrology In m'aed prairie and fescue
grassland ecosystems of Alberta. Ph.D. thesis.
Univ. Alta., Edmonton.
IS, Meal, 3. L, Jr. 1969. Inhibition of nitrifying
bacteria by grass andforb root extracts. Can.
J. Micreblol. 15: 633-635.
16, Reeves, B.O.IC 1978. Bison killing in the south-
walent Alberta Rockies. Plains Anthropologist
23-82, pt. 2: 63-78.
17. Slum/, B. 1967. Rodent-watershed relation-
ships. Project progr. Rpt, 85-5-5-132. Can.
Wildlife Scrv., Edmonton, Alta.
18, Stoddart, L. A., A. D. Smith, and T. W. Box.
1955. Ranee management. McGraw-Hill Book
Co., New York, N.Y.
19. Thomas, A. S. 1960. The tramping animal. J.
Brit. Grassland Soc. 15: 89-93.
20. Turner, G. T. 1973. Effects of pocket gophers on
the range. In G. T. Turner, R. M. Hansen, V.
H. Reid, H. P. Tietjen, and A. L. Ward [eds.]
Pocket gophers and Colorado mountain
rangeland. Bull. 554S. Colo. State Univ. Exp.
Sta., Fort Collins, pp. 51-61.
21. Willms, W. D., J. F. Dormaar, and G. B.
Schaalje. 1988. Stability of grazed patches on
rough fescue grasslands. J. Range Manage. 41:
503-508.
22. Willms, W. D., S. Smoliak, and G. B. Schaalje.
1986. Cattle weight gains in relation to stock-
ing rate on rough fescue grassland. J. Range
Manage. 39: 182-187.
23. Willms, W. D., S. Smoliak, and J. F. Dormaar.
1985. Effects of stocking rate on a rough fescue
grassland vegetation. J. Range Manage. 38:
220-225.
24. Wroe, R. A., M. G. Turnbull, S. Smoliak, and
A. Johnston. 1981. Guide to range condition and
stocking rates for Alberta. Alta. Energy and
Natural Resources, Edmonton. D
The potential for USA-type
nitrogen use adjustments in
mainstream U.S. agriculture
Jay Dee Atwood and S. R. Johnson
ABSTRACT: Concern about environmental impacts of nitrogen (N) fertilizer use is increas-
ing. Mainstream agriculture is dependent on N fertilizer, and use patterns are polluting,
water resources. A 5-cent tax on N fertilizer is shown to have three benefits. National N
fertilizer use is estimated to decline about 10%. Use of legume-produced N increases,
and crop use ofN declines only 5%. A reduction in wasted legume-produced N equal
to 2.5% of N application in the baseline occurs because of increased use of legumes and
other crops in rotation. The Ntax is not without costs. Soil erosion and pesticide use are
estimated to increase 2.2 and 1.7%, respectively, in response to the tax.
BOTH the research community and the
public have expressed growing concern
about nonpoint-source pollution of water by
nitrogen (N) fertilizer (7,11,15, 22). Farm-
ers have increased crop production capaci-
ty by using manufactured N fertilizers (7,
16). Also, N fertilizer often has been applied
beyond the levels removable by crop produc-
tion. The result has been excess, leachable
nitrate in the root zone, contaminating water
supplies (9,15,18). Nitrogen contamination
of water has been linked to human health
risks, poisoning of livestock, and soil salini-
ty (12). Various legislative bodies are con-
sidering policies for regulating nitrogen use
(23).
There are several reasons farmers apply
more N fertilizer than is removed by the
crop. First, production practices, timing,
and application methods may result in use
of more N than is required to assure suffi-
cient amounts in the right place at the right
time for accelerated plant growth. Second,
N fertilizer is relatively inexpensive, and
farmers may apply excessive amounts to en-
Jay Dee Atwood is a collaborator, Soil Conser-
vation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and
assistant professor of economics, andS. R. Johnson
is director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural
Development and professor of economics, Iowa State
University, Ames, 50011. Journal paper no. J-13784
of the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Ex-
periment Station, Ames; projection no. 2872.
sure against the income losses due to weath-
er. Third, crop insurers may require high N
application rates as a best management prac-
tice. Fourth, N-response research results and
application recommendations may suggest
unrealistic yield goals. Finally, crop-specific
government commodity policies influence
rotation choices, resulting in underuse of
legume-produced N.
Information to support analyses of poten-
tial N use polices is limited. Nitrogen sales
•data are available at the county level. But
data on the disposal or use of N by crop and
management technique, by county, generally
are not available. Potential responses of pro-
ducers to alternative N regulations also are
unknown. To fill this information gap, plant
growth and economic interregional resource
allocation/commodity production models
can be combined to estimate N use. That is,
use levels for N by crop, soil, and manage-
ment technique and likely changes in re-
sponse to a N use tax to alternative regu-
lations can be estimated. Differential im-
pacts of the N tax by region and producer
type also can be estimated.
In this study, we estimated the effects of
a 5-cent N tax to show low-input, sustain-
able-agriculture (LISA)-type management
practice adjustments possible with conven-
tional production technology. The approach
used is not new. During the 1970s, when
140 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
energy prices were increasing, similar eval-
uations were made to determine likely ad-
justments to N taxes or quotas (10, 13, 18,
19, 20, 21). Other, more theoretical papers
have shown how a N tax could be derived
to result in a closer matching of private and
public interests (4, 8). Swanson (18) sum-
marized the results of various studies of N
use regulation by taxes and quotas.
The models
We used the Agricultural Resources Inter-
regional Modeling System (ARIMS) (2) for
our analysis. ARIMS is a national-level in-
terregional linear programming model with
activities representing average producer tech-
nology by region (105 for crop production
and 31 for marketing and livestock produc-
tion), land quality, and management prac-
tices. ARIMS was developed for the 1985
Resources Conservation Act appraisal and
is based on the large-scale linear program-
ming modeling systems historically used by
the Center for Agricultural and Rural De-
velopment at Iowa State University. The
solution of the model can be interpreted as
estimating the equilibrium aggregate re-
sponse of producers, given sufficient adjust-
ment time, fixed commodity demands, and
purchased inputs available at constant prices.
ARIMS estimates the overall N fertiliza-
tion level for each crop, legume crop pro-
Table 1. Yield and N use elasticities associated with model coefficients. *
National Level Elasticities
Partial Effects
Crop
Barley
Corn grain
Corn silage
Cotton
Legume hay
Nonlegume hay
Oats
Sorghum
Sorghum silage
Soybeans
Wheat
* National averges
cents/pound.
tNational average
Nitrogen Use/
Price of
Nitrogen
-0.36
-0.59
-0.68
-0.24
-0.15
-0.57
-0.47
-0.57
-1.08
-0.13
-0.36
Yield/
Nitrogen
Application
0.22
0.21
0.14
0.26
0.00
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.07
0.04
0.21
for rainfed crops; the use-weighted N
yield change in response to the N tax
Full
Model Effects-^
Yield/
Price of
Nitrogen
-0.08
-0.12
-0.10
-0.06
-0.00
-0.09
-0.09
-0.11
-0.08
-0.01
-0.08
Output/
Price of
Nitrogen
-1.2
-2.6
-1.1
-0.2
-0.4
-1.5
-0.7
-0.3
0.0
-0.1
-0.4
price increased from 22.5 to 27.5
after all endogenous adjustments.
Table 2. Percent change in fertilizer application due to the N tax (percent from baseline).
Percent Change in Fertilizer Application
Region
Total
Per acre
Total Per acre
Total
Per acre
Northeast
Appalachia
Southeast
Delta
Corn Belt
Lake States
Northern Plains
Southern Plains
Mountain States
Pacific
National
National baseline*
5.8
-7.9
-4.3
-7.2
-9.8
-8.4
-13.2
-11.9
-9.0
-5.4
-9.4
8,040.0
-3.7
-7.4
-4.0
-8.8
-10.8
-8.4
-13.2
-11.9
-9.3
-6.3
-10.1
50.0
11.8
-3.8
-4.0
-5.4
-4.2
-3.6
-11.1
-11.1
-5.0
-2.2
-3.4
4,184.0
1.7
-3.3
-3.8
-7.0
-5.2
-3.6
-11.1
-11.0
-5.3
-3.0
-4.2 .
26.0
11.6
-4.9
-3.1
-5.4
-4.5
-6.7
-11.8
-9.9
-5.9
-2.2
-5.9
2,829.0
1.5
-4.4
-2.8
-7.0
-5.5
-6.7
-11.8
-9.8
-6.2
-3.1
-6.6
18.0
'Baseline quantities are thousands of tons.
Table 3. Regional change in crop production due to the N tax (percent from baseline).
Crop Production Changes (%)
Region Barley
Northeast
Appalachia
Southeast
Delta
Corn Belt
Lake States
Northern Plains
Southern Plains
Mountain States
Pacific
National
-6.9
16.2
-3.6
0.0
8.7
2.0
-0.9
-2.1
0.3
-2.1
0.0
Corn
Grain
13.8
-1.4
-2.0
-4.3
-0.4
-0.6
-4.7
15.7
0.3
-10.3
-0.0
Corn
Silage Cotton Sorghum SoybeansWheat
45.7
-18.7
0.0
0.0
-100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
9.8
9.0
0.0
-2.2
-3.6
14.3
27.4
0.0
0.0
-5.6
8.5
-3.8
0.0
-50.4
-1.4
-4.4
2.0
-5.7
-1.6
4.4
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
0.0
28.9
-2.6
0.2
-2.1
0.1
-2.1
-4.2
31.1
-2.9
0.0
0.2
2.4
-3.6
-2.1
-2.7
1.2
-3.4
0.0
-0.8
-0.4
3.3
0.0
Legume
Hay
18.8
10.7
-3.1
1.5
3.8
3.5
-23.9
-0.4
-0.0
0.6
2.4
Nonlegume
Hay
-1.5
-8.9
-2.3
-2.5
-8.3
-2.5
2.1
-5.0
-3.2
-1.7
-2.6
duction, and substitution of livestock ma-
nure for purchased N. Production activities
require either purchased inputs or inputs
from internal production, for example,
manufactured N fertilizer or manure from
livestock. Also included are activities for
livestock feeding and production, land con-
version, and land idling. Regional com-
modity demands can be met by local pro-
duction or by transportation of commodities
produced in other regions. Three market re-
gions serve as trade links to international
markets.
ARIMS results are conditioned by fixed
commodity demands, projected yield growth,
the policy provisions of current agricultural
legislation, and estimated market outcomes
for 1990. These factors are taken from
FAPRI (J) and U.S. Department of Agri-
culture (USD A) statistics. Production tech-
nology and environmental impact informa-
tion for cropping and land use in ARIMS
are derived largely from the erosion-pro-
ductivity impact calculator (EPIC) (14).
For an area, soil type, year, and manage-
ment technique, crop yields of each produc-
tion activity are fixed, as are fertilizer re-
quirements per unit of yield. Nitrogen use
levels can change only as crop acreage and
yields change as a result of changes in man-
agement techniques. For each cropping ac-
tivity, crop yields are predetermined using
FAPRI and USDA statistics and EPIC re-
sults (14). We used a Spillman-type yield
function (3, 6, 17) to estimate N require-
ments, given the predetermined yields.
The 5-cent N tax was approximated by
a price increase in each region. Yield and
N levels were estimated from the 1990 base-
line. Modifications in N use and yield im-
plied by the Spillman estimates and the tax
then were applied. In rotations including le-
gume crops, the tax may lower the N use lev-
el to the point that legumes produce more N
than is needed for the rotation. In that case,
the application requirement is set to zero.
Regional prices for N vary in the United
States. To illustrate the magnitude of the
fertilizer price change from the 5% tax
within ARIMS, a use-weighted N price was
calculated. This weighted price increased
from 22.5 to 27.5 cents per pound. On aver-
age, the approximate 25% increase in N
price affected fertilizer use by about 5 % (N
application by 10%) and yields by 1 to 2%
(Table 1). However, in aggregate, after the
model accounted for possible interregional,
crop rotation, and livestock production
changes, the estimated aggregate percentage •
changes in yields were smaller.
Results
Herein, we report only aggregate results
from the experiment. The ARIMS results
January-February 1990 141
-------
depend partly upon the specified market de-
mand levels and rigid acreage allocations
implied by commodity program parameters.
These conditioning factors, together with the
aggregate nature of the model, may give ad-
justments different from those that would be
expected for a single farm or region. In
short, the policy impacts estimated by
ARIMS are intended to be national and
interregional indicators, and they must be
interpreted within the context of the model.
Fertilizer use. In ARIMS, aggregate N
use can vary by (1) changes in application
level for an individual cropping activity; (2)
changes in overall cropping mix, which must
be reflected in livestock feed substitution
because final demand composition is fixed;
and (3) changes in management practices,
such as crop rotations. For example, le-
gumes can be substituted for nonlegumes,
and crops with lower N requirements can
be substituted in the overall crop mix. These
changes can occur within and between re-
gions. In particular, and important for the
results presented, legumes can be grown in
rotation with nonlegumes.
In ARIMS, animal-produced N is direct-
ly substitutable for purchased N. Thus, the
substitution between produced and pur-
chased N can result in avoiding the N tax
with no implied change in total application.
In some cases, the N available for leaching
can be more than the reported application,
when legumes produce more than the next
crop in the rotation requires.
For the national 5-cent N tax, total and
par-acre nitrogen applications (fertilizer and
manure) by USDA production region de-
clined between 4% and 13% compared to
the baseline (Table 2). However, legume-
produced N use increased and plant use of
N declined by only one-half the reduction
in purchased N application. National pro-
duction of legumes increased only 2.5%
("Bible 3), indicating that about one-half of
the substituted legume-produced N was al-
ready "in the system" but in rotations where
it was not usable. These results can be seen
by comparing plant nutrient application
changes (columns one and three of table 2)
and noting that in ARIMS crops are required
to use N, phosphorous (P), and potassium
(K) in fixed proportions. In summary, the
use of N by crops was down about 5%, and
there was an additional reduction of excess
N in the system because of better use of
legumes, equal to about one-half of the de-
cline in purchased N application.
The N tax increased cropped acreage and
fertilizer use in the Northeast, probably be-
cause of transportation costs and higher pro-
duction costs for grain in other regions
(Table 3). Total P and K changes for the
Northeast were greater than for N, while
Table 4. Percent changes in non-nutrient input use resulting from the N tax (percent from
baseline).
Change in Non-nutrient Inputs (%)
Region
Northeast
Appalachia
Southeast
Delta
Corn Belt
Lake States
Northern Plains
Southern Plains
Mountain States
Pacific
National
Cropped Acres
10.0
-0.5
-0.3
1.8
1.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.3
0.7
0.8
Pesticides*
12.9
-0.5
-0.3
6.8
1.5
0.1
0.4
0.5
1.1
2.3
1.7
Machinery*
11.6
-0.1
-0.5
4.3
1.4
-0.1
-0.3
0.2
0.5
0.6
1.1
Labor*
11.6
0.2
-0.4
3.0
1.2
0.2
-0.2
0.2
0.7
0.2
1.1
'Expenditure changes.
Table 5. Soil erosion impacts resulting from the N tax (percent from baseline).
So/7 Erosion Impacts
Region
Northeast
Appalachia
Southeast
Delta
Corn Belt
Lake States
Northern Plains
Southern Plains
Mountain States
Pacific
National
Water
16.3
0.0
-0.5
0.7
2.9
1.6
2.7
2.1
0.2
3.2
3.0
Per Acre
Wind
-9.5
-0.7
-0.9
-1.0
-1.2
-0.7
-1.1
2.9
0.2
1.0
-0.3
Total
15.0
-0.0
-0.5
0.5
2.2
0.6
0.2
2.7
0.2
2.1
1.3
Water
29.4
-0.5
-0.9
2.8
4.0
1.6
2.7
2.0
0.6
4.5
3.9
Total
Wind
-0.7
-1.3
-1.2
1.1
-0.1
-0.6
-1.2
2.8
0.6
2.3
0.6
Total
27.8
-0.6
-0.9
2.6
3.3
0.7
0.1
2.6
0.6
3.4
2.2
per-acre changes were lower, indicating a
substantial shift to legume-produced N
(Table 2 and 3). In Appalachia, there was
a shift to relatively more intensive cropping
because per-acre N use dropped relatively
less than total use (Table 2).
In the Southeast and the Delta, the tax had
little impact on crop mix or management
practice; all nutrients declined proportion-
ately. In the Corn Belt, there was less in-
tensive cropping because per-acre applica-
tion declined more than total use, implying
that more legumes were grown in rotation.
The 10% decline in N use in this area was
especially significant, given the heavy level
of use in the baseline (Table 2).
The Lake States region showed a similar
relative cropping intensity between the two
ARIMS runs, in as much as per-acre and
total fertilizer applications changes were
nearly equal. The largest decreases in N ap-
plication (about 12%) occurred in the Great
Plains, with little change in either crop mix,
management, or cropping intensity; implied
crop acreages were similar to the base
(Table 3). In the Mountain States, there also
was a large decrease in N application (9%),
along with a movement to less intensive
cropping because per-acre quantities de-
clined by more than the totals.
Nonnutrient input use. Different man-
agement practices involve alternative, rel-
ative proportions of the inputs. The N tax
affected the use of other production factors
(Table 4). At the national level, increased
pesticide use (1.7%) was more than double
the increased acreage (0.8%) and was one
and one-half times the increase in machinery
and labor (1.1 %). In general, this implied
shifts to more intensive cropping, with pes-
ticides having a larger share of production
costs in selected areas.
The increase in input use, particularly
pesticides (12.9%), was dramatic in the
Northeast. This pesticide use increase, ac-
companied by the N increase, indicates an
environmentally negative impact of the fer-
tilizer tax, suggesting consideration of more
specialized taxes. Only in Appalachia and
the Southeast did pesticide use decrease, and
these decreases were exactly equal to
cropped acreage declines. All other regions
had higher rates of pesticide use per acre
than before the N tax. In most regions pes-
ticide use increased relative to machinery
and labor, implying a move away from what
is commonly understood to be low-input,
sustainable agriculture for some land types.
Soil erosion impacts. The N tax resulted
in increased soil erosion at the national
level, both per acre (1.3%) and in total
(2.2%) (TableS). Lower yields, combined
with fixed demands, imply more intensive
cropping on more marginal land. In all but
the Southern Plains, Mountain States, and
Pacific States, wind erosion decreased be-
cause of the tax. Water erosion was up in
all regions except Appalachia and the South-
east. These percentage changes were small
in general compared to those reported for
142 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
cropped land (Table 4) and fertilizer use
(Table 2).
Regional crop production patterns. Re-
gional shifts in crop production due to the
tax were large (Table 3). At the national
level, only commodities used as feed are
allowed to change because final demands in
ARIMS are fixed. But regional distributions
of crop production can change. For the na-
tion, legume hay was substituted for non-
legume hay, soybeans increased by 0.2%,
and corn silage increased by 9.0%.
Barley was substituted for corn silage in
Appalachia (16.2 for -18.7%), in the Corn
Belt (8.7 for -100.0%), and to lesser extent
in the Lake States and Mountain States.
Corn silage was substituted for barley in the
Northeast (45.7 for -6.9%) and at lower
levels in the Southeast, Northern Plains and
Southern Plains, and Pacific areas. These
changes correlate to some extent with the
livestock production changes (Table 6). The
Northeast region showed the largest crop
mix impacts. The Northern Plains and
Mountain States both had a decrease in total
acreage in legumes; however, the nutrient
requirement impacts (Table 2) indicate more
legume-produced N. Thus, crop rotation
changes occurred as a result of the tax.
livestock production due to nitrogen tax.
At the national level, there were no changes
in livestock production because final de-
mands were unchanged from the baseline
(Table 6). Regional shifts in production,
however, were large. There was a general
shift in cattle and fed-beef production from
the Southern Plains to the Corn Belt. The
percentage changes (Table 6) were modest,
but actual numbers were large because these
regions had a major share of national pro-
duction in the baseline.
The greatest regional shifts were in pork
production, with percentage gains for the
Northeast (19.9%) and Lake States (27.3%)
and losses in Appalachia (-28.9%), the
Southern Plains (-91.8%), and Mountain
States (-23.7%). Dairy production and
grass-fed beef shifted among regions the
least. Cattle (cow-calf) and grain-fed beef
production recorded major shifts.
Producer cost and income. We evaluated
changes in producer costs and income due
to the N tax by comparing changes in total
production cost with changes in estimated
total imputed revenue (Table 7). The base-
line or base run was again the reference
point.
At the national level, crop producers
gained at the expense of livestock produc-
ers. Total costs increased 0.8%, while total
revenue increased 2.2%. For livestock pro-
ducers, a 0.7% revenue decrease offset the
small decrease in production costs. Crop
producers gained 5.1% in imputed reve-
nues, while production costs increased only
1.3%. The Appalachian region was nega-
tively impacted the most, as indicated by the
balance of cost and revenue changes, while
Table 6. Regional changes in livestock production due to the N tax (percent from baseline).
Livestock Changes (%)
Region
Northeast
Appalachia
Southeast
Delta
Corn Belt
Lake States
Northern Plains
Southern Plains
Mountain States
Pacific
National
Pork
19.9
-28.9
0.0
0.1
-0.5
27.3
1.0
-91.8
-23.7
0.0
-0.0
Dairy
0.3
0.2
-0.0
0.0
0.8
-2.1
-3.5
0.1
2.3
0.0
-0.0
Cattle
0.3
8.1
-0.4
0.2
5 5
-0.8
1.7
-6.5
0.4
0.5
-0.0
Grain
241 5
241 5
0.0
-10
1 4
1.3
-4.3
-4.6
-1.7
1.3
0.0
Beef
Grass
0 2
2 2
-2.1
0 8
3 1
-1.8
2.7
-2.9
0 6
0.5
0.0
Table 7. Percentage change in producer costs and returns due to the N tax (percent from
baseline).
Change in Producer Costs and Returns (%)
Crops
Region
Northeast
Appalachia
Southeast
Delta
Corn Belt
Lake States
Northern Plains
Southern Plains
Mountain States
Pacific
National
Cost
13.1
-0.1
-0.7
3.6
0.9
1.6
-0.0
1.3
0.9
0.5
1.3
Returns
18.3
1.5
0.9
5.0
3.9
5.3
5.4
4.3
7.9
6.5
5.1
Livestock
Cost
0.8
0.6
-0.3
0.0
0.8
4.0
0.2
-5.1
0.0
0.4
-0.0
Returns
0.5
-2.7
-0.9
-1 6
-0 2
24
-1.9
-4.0
-1.8
0.0
-0.7
Total
Cost
6 0
0.2
-0.5
2 1
0 9
1 6
0 0
-1.8
0.6
0.4
0.8
Returns
6 3
-0.4
-0 2
2 1
1 9
3 7
2 7
2.5
27
2.0
2.2
the Lake States, Northern Plains, Southern
Plains, and Mountain States all gained.
Conclusions
Results from the analysis with ARIMS in-
dicate a N tax of reasonable size has an im-
pact on fertilizer use even if opportunities
for response were restricted to existing pro-
duction technologies. Although the estimat-
ed impacts of the N tax from ARIMS were
fairly small, they were larger than found in
other studies (18). Still, the results are in
general agreement with the idea that with
current production technology farmers are
not likely to be highly responsive to price
in fertilizer usage. However, despite the
limitations for substitution in N use in
ARIMS, considerable flexibility in accom-
modating to the tax is indicated for main-
stream U.S. agricultural technologies. The
policy question is how to design measures
that can take advantage of this potential
flexibility.
The ARIMS solution shows that applied
commercial fertilizer is not the sole prob-
lem leading to current levels of water con-
tamination. With present commodity policy,
farmers are led to crop rotation sequences
in which legume-produced N is underused.
According to the analysis, policies affecting
rotation choices can have large impacts on
N use. The fertilizer tax is one such policy,
but it can result in the substitution of other
inputs, implying greater chemical use and
in some cases increased erosion levels.
Estimated national impacts of the N tax
experiment were relatively small. However,
the impacts on individual fanners and re-
gions may be large. For example, impos-
ing a blanket national tax may unfairly pe-
nalize producers in those areas of the nation
where water contamination problems are not
severe and may inadequately address signifi-
cant problems elsewhere. Crop producers
generally benefit from input taxes because
final demands are relatively inelastic. In-
creases in marginal production costs exceed
the increase in average costs, and revenue
increases exceed cost increases. However,
this result is highly conditioned by the cost
minimization structure implicit in the
ARIMS specification. That is, with support-
ed commodity prices, producers may in real-
ity experience only the cost increases esti-
mated by ARIMS because increased market
prices would in large part only reduce gov-
ernment costs.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Delwiche, C. C 1970. The nitrogen cycle. In The
Biosphere. W. H. Freeman and Co. San Fran-
cisco, Calif, pp. 71-80.
2. English, Burton C, Elwin G. Smith, Jay D. At-
wood, George Oamek and Stanley R. Johnson.
1989. Resource Conservation Act analysis: An
overview'of the CARD agricultural resource
interregional modeling system. CARD Tech.
January-February 1990 143
-------
Rpt, 89-TRI1. Center for Agr. and Rural Devel.,
State Univ., Ames.
3. English, Burton C, Klaus F. Alt, and Earl O.
Heady, 1982. A documentation of the Resources
Conxnaiton Act's assessment model of regional
asriculniml production, land and mter use, and
soli loss, CARD Rpt. 107T. Center for Agr. and
Rural Develop,, Iowa State Univ., Ames.
4, Fbinerman. Eli, E. Kwan Choi, and Stanley R.
Johnson. 1990. Uncertainty and split nitrogen
application in com production. Am. J. Agr.
Econ, (in press).
5. Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute.
1988, FAPRl ten-year international agricultural
outlook. Summary and tables, March. Center
Agr. and Rural Develop., Iowa State Univ.,
Ames.
6. Griffin, Ronald C, John M. Montgomery and
M, Edward Rister. 1987. Selecting functional
form In production function analysis. West. J.
Agr, Econ. 12(2): 216-227.
7, Hargrove, W. L. 1988. Cropping strategies for
effdent use of v,wer and nitrogen. Spec. Publ.
No. 51. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wise.
8. Homer. Gerald L. 1975. Internalising agricul-
tural nitrogen pollution externalities: A case
stutlv. Am. J. Agr. Econ. (February): 33-39.
9. Kecncy, D. R. 1983. Transformation and
transport of nitrogen. In Frank W. Schaller and
George W. Bffltley [eds.] Agricultural Manage-
ment and Cmtinatwter Quality. Iowa State Univ.
Press, Ames, pp. 48-64.
K). Kramer, Randall A., William T. McSweeney,
Waldon R. Kerns, and Robert W. Stavros. 1984.
An evaluation of alternative policies for control-
Unit agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
Water Resources Bull. 20(6): 841-846.
II. Nielsen, Donald R., and J. G. MacDonald. 1978.
Nitrogen in the environment. Academic Press,
New \fork, N.Y.
12, Nielsen, Elizabeth B., and Linda K. Lee. 1987.
The magnitude and costs ofgrotmd\mter contam-
Inatlmfrom agricultural chemicals: A national
perspective. Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 576. Econ. Res.
Serv. U.S. DcjX, Agr., Washington, D.C.
13, Palmini, Dennis J. 1982. The secondary impact
ofnmwoint-pollittion controls: A linear program-
mtne-mHitfoiitpia analysis. J. Environ. Econ. and
Man. 9; 263-278.
14, Puirnan, John W., and Paul T. Dyke. 1987. The
cmsion-proditctivity impact calculator as form-
ulated for the Resource Conservation Act ap-
Dnksi/. No. AGES861204. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S.
Dcpt, Agr., \\tahington, D.C.
15, Schalter.Trank W, and George W. Bailey, [cds.]
1983, Agricultural management and water qual-
ity. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.
16, Sprent, Janet 1.1987. Ttie ecology of the nitrogen
cycle. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, N.Y.
17. Sweckcr, Art. 1974. A quadratic programming
model of US. agriculture in 1980. Ph.D. diss.
Iowa State Univ., Ames.
18, Swanson, E. R. 1982. Economic implications of
controls on nitrogen fertilizer use. In Nitrogen in
Agricultural Soils. Agron. Monog. No. 22. Am.
Soc, Agron., Madison, Wise.
», Tiylor, C. Robert, and Klaus K. Frohberg. 1977.
77ie welfare effects of erosion controls, banning
pesticides, and limiting fertilizer application in
the Com Bell, Am. J. Agr. Econ. 59: 25-36.
20, Thomas, Dennis L.t and Earl O. Heady. 1977.
American agriculture In 1980 under a fertilizer
allocation system. Center for Agr. and Rural
Develop., Iowa State Univ., Ames.
21, Walker, Jr., M. E., and E. R. Swanson. 1974.
Economic effects of a total farm nitrogen balance
appmch to retluction of potential nitrate pollu-
tion. Ill, Asr. Econ. (July): 21-27.
Wilson, J. R. 1988. Ad\wtces in nitrogen cycl-
Reducing field losses
of nitrogen: Is erosion
control enough?
Fritz M. Roka, Richard A. Levins, Billy V. Lessley, and William L. Magette
ABSTRACT: Reducing nitrogen (N) losses in surface runoff from a representative farm on
the Upper Eastern Shore of Maryland is shown to be compatible with traditional methods
of soil erosion control. Cropping adjustments that reduced erosion also reduced field losses
of surface N. Analysis of potential methods to reduce nitrate percolation losses, however,
showed that large reductions in nitrate percolation losses were achieved by shifting from
corn to soybeans and from no-till practices to conventional tillage management, thereby
increasing surface losses of soil and N.
22,
23,
. . . .
ing in agricultural ecosystems. Proc., Symp. on
Advances in N Cycling in Agr. Ecosystems,
C.A.B. International, wallingford, Eng.
Wise, Sherry, and Stanley R. Johnson. 1989. A
comparative analysis of state regulations for the
use of agriculture citemicals. In Nancy Bockstael
and Richard Just [cds.) Commodity and Resource
Mats in Agricultural Systems. Springer-'Verlag,
Berlin, Germany. LJ
IMPROVED water quality often is cited as
one of the benefits of soil conservation
programs (8). For example, the Conserva-
tion Reserve Program has been justified
partly by the positive effects it will have on
water quality (3). The relationship between
erosion control and water quality is straight-
forward if sediment is a principal water
pollutant. If it is not, water quality benefits
of erosion control become less clear.
Knisel and associates suggested that soil
conservation and water quality protection
can be contradictory goals (5). They argued
that controlling surface water movement
reduces surface losses of pollutants but can
simultaneously increase groundwater pollu-
tion resulting from increased percolation
losses. Such cases are likely when sediment
is not the principal water pollutant. For ex-
ample, nitrogen (N) is considered the lead-
ing nonpoint-source agricultural pollutant in
Maryland (6"). State officials have endorsed
a public policy goal to reduce nonpoint N
loadings to the Chesapeake Bay 40% by the
year 2000 (1). Because a portion of N field
losses is transported with detached sedi-
ment, a side benefit of soil erosion control
could be a reduction in sediment-bound N.
However, because nitrate salts are water
soluble, N can move independently of soil,
either with surface runoff or in water per-
Fritz M. Roka is a fanner faculty research assis-
tant, Department of Agricultural and Resource Eco-
nomics, University of Maryland, College Park,
20742; Richard A. Levins is an associate professor,
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics,
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 55108; Billy V.
Lessley is a professor, Department of Agricultural
and Resource Economics, and William L. Magette
is an assistant professor, Department of Agricultural
Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park,
20742. The authors thank members of the Maryland
Cooperative Extension Service, Maryland Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, and Maryland Soil Con-
servation Service as well as Walter Knisel for their
assistance. This work was funded in part by the
Maryland Department of Agriculture through its
Chesapeake Bay research initiatives.
colating into groundwater.
Herein, we examine the economic and en-
vironmental trade-offs between controlling
surface and percolation losses of N for a
typical cash grain farm on the Upper Eastern
Shore of Maryland. Results indicate that
cropping adjustments that control one path-
way of N transport may exacerbate others.
Study methods
A 324-ha (800-acre) cash grain farm was
specified as representative of agricultural
conditions on the Upper Eastern Shore,
which is located in the mid-Atlantic Coastal
Plain. We assumed the farm was planted to
a combination of corn grain, soybeans, and
wheat. The farm operator could use conven-
tional tillage, no-till, winter cover crops after
row crops, or idle cropland as economic
conditions and environmental restrictions
warranted.
The farm was comprised of four soil con-
ditions that represented two soil textures and
two average field slopes: 150 ha (370 acres)
of Sassafras sandy loam on a 3.5% slope,
22 ha (55 acres) of Sassafras sandy loam on
a 7.5% slope, 128 ha (315 acres) of Mata-
peake silt loam on a 3.5% slope, and 24 ha
(60 acres) of Matapeake silt loam on a 7.5 %
slope. We assumed soils were well-drained
and had a rooting zone of 91 cm (36 inches).
Specific hectarages of each soil type roughly
correspond to area proportions of the respec-
tive soil types on the Upper Eastern Shore
of Maryland (9).
We developed crop budgets showing re-
turns to land, fixed capital, and management
for 60 crop-management-soil combinations.
Variable production and machinery costs,
together with estimated labor requirements
for each crop system, were taken from Roka
(9). Market and input prices were chosen
as representative of 1985-1986 market con-
ditions. Crop returns assumed market prices
of $0.11, $0.12, and $0.22/kg ($2.70, $3.05,
and $5.85 per bushel) for corn grain, wheat
144 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
and soybeans, respectively.
We developed crop yields from yield in-
formation in county soil surveys (11,12,13,
14, 15) to determine relative differences in
crop yields among soil categories. These rel-
ative differences were applied to regional
production averages for 1981-1985 to obtain
yields for the representative farm (9). For
field slopes of 3.5%, corn yields were budg-
eted to be 7,850 kg/ha (125 bushels/acre) and
7,220 kg/ha (115 bushels/acre) on Matapeake
silt loam and Sassafras sandy loam, respec-
tively. Wheat and soybean yields were 3,360
kg/ha (50 bushels/acre) and 2,070 kg/ha (33
bushels/acre) for both soil types. At 7.5 %
field slopes, crop yields declined. On
Matapeake silt loam and Sassafras sandy
loam, corn yields dropped to 6,900 kg/ha
(110 bushels/acre) and 6,590 kg/ha (105 bush-
els/acre), respectively. Wheat and soybean
yields declined to 3,025 kg/ha (45 bushels/
acre) and 1,950 kg/ha (29 bushels/acre),
respectively.
Nitrogen fertilization rates for corn and
wheat followed current recommendations of
the University of Maryland Agronomy De-
partment: 75 kg/kg and 67 kg/kg (1.2 pounds
and 1.0 pound/bushel) of expected yield,
respectively. Soybeans did not receive N fer-
tilization. Methods of N application also fol-
lowed production practices of growers on the
Upper Eastern Shore. Nitrogen was split in
three applications for corn with 65% of the
total amount being injected as sidedressing
in mid-June. Nitrogen fertilization for wheat
was split in two applications. Ten percent
of the total N for wheat was drilled during
fall planting; the balance was broadcast in
early March.
We used the CREAMS (Chemicals, Run-
off and Erosion from Agricultural Manage-
ment Systems) model (4) to simulate average
annual per hectare losses of soil, surface N,
and nitrate percolation occurring from the
60 budgeted farm activities. CREAMS is a
comparative simulation model that evaluates
relative changes in pollutant losses among
alternative management systems for specific
field conditions. Parameters describing hy-
drology, erosion, and chemical components
were taken from the CREAMS user's guide
(10) and modified as necessary to match
climatic, agricultural, and soil conditions on
the Upper Eastern Shore. We based simula-
tion on daily rainfall records collected at the
Wye Research and Education Center, Queens-
town, Maryland. Simulations covered an
11-year period, from January 1, 1976, to De-
cember 31, 1986. Using hydrology output
and assuming uniform slope configuration,
erosion and nutrient components of CREAMS
simulated "edge-of-field" losses of soil, sur-
face N, and nitrate percolation by soil type
and crop system.
Table 1: Annual CREAMS-simulated runoff and percolation volumes for conventionally tilled
corn on Matapeake silt loam and Sassafras sandy loam, 3.5% slope.
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
Annual Average
Silt Loam
Rainfall
89.9
116.1
136.1
91.2
101.1
112.5
123.2
102.9
89.4
78.0
102.6
Runoff
5.3
13.2
12.5
4.3
5.1
11.9
16.0
5.8
6.1
3.1
8.3
Percolation
3.1
22.9
24.1
10.7
0.3
11.7
22.1
21.6
0.0
1.8
11.7
Sandy Loam
Runoff
3.6
8.9
7.1
3.1
3.6
8.4
10.9
3.1
4.6
2.0
5.3
Percolation
18.0
33.0
42.2
14.5
15.0
31.0
39.9
28.4
8.6
10.7
23.9
Here, our analyses of farm-level re-
sponses to reductions in soil or N field loss-
es began with a behavioral assumption that
production decisions corresponded with a
farm operator's goal to increase profit. Fol-
lowing an approach taken by Crowder and
associates (2), a linear programming model
merged crop budget data with CREAMS
data. The linear programming model (9) de-
termined optimal crop combinations under
soil loss and nitrate percolation controls that
maximized farm returns subject to con-
straints on land and total hours available for
field labor per period.
We established a farm base by solving the
linear programming model without binding
pollution constraints. The base represented
crop combinations that the operator would
choose if his/her sole interest was to max-
imize farm income. The farm operator's re-
sponse to limits on erosion and nitrate per-
colation were simulated by solving the mod-
el separately for certain reduced levels of
soil erosion and nitrate percolation found in
the base solution. We then compared in-
come and field losses of soil, surface N, and
nitrate percolation with base values.
Results
CREAMS simulations vs. monitored
data. We did not "calibrate" the CREAMS
model to match existing data. Nor were
large amounts of data available with which
to judge the validity of CREAMS predic-
tions for all cropping systems. However, a
limited amount of data collected at two sites
on the Upper Eastern Shore indicated that
the model did make reasonable predictions
of both water and pollutant movement.
Average annual precipitation for the study
area during the simulation period (1976-
1986) was 101/cm (40 inches); this precip-
itation was distributed fairly evenly
throughout the year. Over the last 5 years
at the sites from which physical data were
obtained as CREAMS input for this study,
annual precipitation was below average,
ranging from 60% to 100% of average pre-
cipitation for the simulation period.
Runoff measured at the Wye Research
and Education Center (Mattapex silt loam)
and the Indiantown Demonstration Farm
(Sassafras sandy loam) has been low. Since
1984, when monitoring began at these sites,
runoff volume from com production sys-
tems has ranged from 4.3 cm/yr (1.7 inch-
es/year) to 11 cm/yr (4.4 inches/year) on
Mattapex silt loam soil and from 1.8 cm/yr
(0.7 inches/year) to 4.3 cm/yr (1.7 inches/
year) on Sassafras sandy loam soil (16 and
unpublished data, William L. Maggette).
For conventional and no-till corn systems,
CREAMS prediction of annual runoff by
soil texture is within the range of measured
values. For example, table 1 shows these
values for conventionally tilled corn.
Recharge to groundwater (leaching)
ranges from 25.4 to 63.5 cm/yr (10 to 25
inches/year) in the mid-Atlantic Coastal
Plain (17). Recharge generally occurs after
crops have been harvested in the fall (mid-
to late-October) (16). Under conventional
corn production systems on Mattapex silt
loam soils, recharge ranges from an esti-
mated 15 to 20 cm/yr (6 to 8 inches/year)
(16). Simulated percolation volumes (Table
1) are close to these values. We also believe
distribution of simulated percolation vol-
umes were fairly representative of observed
distributions.
Corresponding to low runoff volumes,
surface losses of sediment and N on moni-
tored sites were low (16 and unpublished
data, William L. Magette). Erosion rates on
conventionally tilled cornfields on either site
were below 2.24 t/ha (1 ton/acre). Sediment
losses from conventionally tilled soybean
sites on the Sassafras sandy loam soil were
0.02 t/ha (0.01 ton/acre) in 1987. Of surface
N losses measured from conventionally
tilled corn and soybean systems, most were
sediment-bound: 70% for corn and 60% for
soybeans (unpublished data, William L.
Magette).
Table 2 provides an example of the
CREAMS output for all crop systems on
Sassafras sandy loam soil on a 3.5 % slope.
For the other soil types, ranking of crop sys-
January-February 1990 145
-------
tenis according to the magnitude of field
losses remained consistent with the order-
ing in table 2. Runoff and percolation vol-
umes differed by soil texture. There was
greater surface runoff on silt loam soils than
on sandy loam soils, but percolation was
lower on the silt loam soil. For any given
soil texture, simulated runoff and percola-
tion volumes were equal for field slopes of
3,5% and 7.5%. As a result, erosion rates
were greatest from silt loam soils on a 7.5%
slope; nitrate percolation losses were highest
on sandy loam soils.
CREAMS generally tended to predict
sediment losses that were higher than those
observed in Maryland field studies. In part,
predicted N losses were high because
CREAMS correctly predicted that N losses
were mostly sediment-bound. It appeared
that the predictions were consistent from
one system to another, such that relative
comparisons would be reasonable.
Economic simulations. In addition to
field losses simulated by CREAMS, table
2 shows annual per-hectare returns to land,
fixed capital, and management by crop and
tillage system for Sassafras sandy loam soil
on a 3.5% slope. For other soil types con-
sidered, the relative ranking of crop systems
by returns remained consistent with the or-
dering in table 2. Because of higher poten-
tial corn yields, level silt loam soils pro-
duced higher returns than sandy loam soils
on steeper field slopes.
The base solution indicated that no-till
corn was the most profitable crop. Of the
324 total hectares (800 acre), 174 ha (430
acres), were planted to continuous corn 132
Table 2: Average annual returns and CREAMS-simulated field losses of soil, surface M,
and nitrate percolation on Sassafras sandy loam soil, 3.5%slope.
Field Losses
Crop Systems
Conventional tillage
Corn-corn
Corn-wheat/soybeans
Corn + wheat cover
Corn-soybeans
Corn-wheat (clover)
Soybeans-soybeans
Soybeans* wheat cover
No-till
Corn-corn
Corn-wheat/soybeans
Corn + wheat cover
Corn-soybeans
Corn-wheat (clover)
Soybeans-soybeans
Soybeans + wheat cover
Idle land
Returns
($/ha)
433.90
420.80
401.80
361.50
304.20
280.20
248.80
445.50
424.00
413.90
367.90
302.40
281.90
249.30
-20.00
Soil
(t/ha)
4.5
3.4
3.4
4.9
2.9
5.4
3.6
1.1
0.5
0.7
0.9
0.5
3.6
0.9
0.5
Surface N
(kg/ha)
6.5
4.5
4.4
6.9
3.1
7.4
5.0
2.0
1.6
1.2
3.0
0.7
5.3
1.5
0.6
Percolated N
(kg/ha)
23.4
13.3
17.3
13.3
28.5
9.9
7.1
24.3
13.7
17.6
13.6
29.3
10.2
7.3
4.6
Table 3: Summary of field losses under base and selected soil and percolation reduction
Pollutants
Controlled soil erosion
Losses (t/ha)
Other associated losses
Surface N (kg/ha)
Nitrate percolation (kg/ha)
Controlled nllrate percolation
Losses (kg/ha)
Other associated losses:
Surface N (kg/ha)
Soil erosion (t/ha)
Base
2.2
4.3
15.0
15.0
4.3
2.2
Field Losses by Plan
Reduction
20%
1.8
3.5
15.4
12.1
5.8
3.4
Plans
40%
.3
2.8
16.7
9.1
9.1
6.1
Table 4: Summary of farm returns and unit cost of N reduction under soil and percolation
controls.
Pollutants
Controlled soil loss plan
Farm returns ($/ha)
Unit cost of reduced surface nitrogen ($/kg)
Controlled nitrate percolation plan
Farm returns (S/ha)
Unit cost of reduced nitrate percolation ($/kg)
Returns
Base
420.00
420.00
and Costs by Plan
Reduction Plans
20% 40%
412.70 400.20
1 .59 2.28
407.70 387.90
0.71 0.91
ha (325 acres) were rotated between no-till
corn and no-till soybeans, and the remain-
ing 18 ha (45 acres) were planted to con-
tinuous no-till soybeans. Farm returns aver-
aged $420/ha ($170/acre). Average annual
per-hectare losses of soil, surface N, and
nitrate percolation were 2.24 metric tons
(1.0 ton), 1.7 kg (3.8 pounds), and 6.1 kg
(13.4 pounds), respectively.
Figure 1 illustrates crop adjustments that
occurred when soil erosion under base con-
ditions was reduced 20% and 40%. At both
levels of reduction, no-till management was
retained. Cropping systems shifted from
soybeans to a combination of corn and
wheat. In addition, the hectarage of winter
cover crops and idle land increased.
Table 3 summarizes levels of uncon-
strained pollutants, that is, surface N and
nitrate percolation, as soil losses were re-
duced. About 90% of total surface N losses
were simulated by CREAMS to be sedi-
ment-bound. Consequently, levels of sur-
face N losses changed directly with soil
losses. Mass of nitrate percolation losses,
however, increased as surface N and soil
losses declined. CREAMS-simulated per-
colation losses from corn and wheat systems
were higher relative to soybean systems.
This was due to the occurrence of leaching
soon after fertilization (7).
Crop management strategies that were in-
tended to control nitrate percolation were
quite different from strategies that con-
trolled soil erosion. Figure 2 shows crop ad-
justments as base nitrate percolation losses
were reduced 20% and 40%. Several shifts
in cropping patterns occured simultaneous-
ly. Conventional tillage replaced no-till man-
agement, and corn acreage was displaced by
soybeans and wheat/soybeans in double-
cropping. The net effect of these cropping
shifts was an increase in surface losses of N
and soil when compared to erosion control
strategies (Table 3).
Table 4 shows farm returns when soil or
nitrate pecolation was reduced 20% and
40 %. Farm income fell by a greater amount
under nitrate percolation control than under
soil erosion control. Table 4 also compares
unit costs of reducing predicted surface N
losses with unit costs of reducing predicted
nitrate percolation losses. We determined
unit costs by dividing the change in farm
income by the change in N field-loss level.
Reducing soil loss 40% decreased farm in-
come il9.75/ha ($8/acre) and reduced sur-
face N losses by 1.45 kg/ha (1.3 pounds/
acre). Unit cost of surface N reduction with
soil erosion controls was $5.50/kg
($6.15/pound) of surface N. Decreasing ni-
trate percolation 40% lowered farm income
$32/ha ($13/acre) and nitrate percolation
losses 5.9 kg/ha (5.3 pounds/acre). Unit
146 Journal ol Soil and Water Conservation
-------
300 -
250 -
200 -
Base
20%
Soil Loss Reduction
40%
Crop Systems
CD idle
I I nt soybean+w.cover
^H nt corn-wheat
IHH nt soybean—soybean
L^J nt corn-soybean
nt corn—corn
300 - »=n -- —_—
250 -~:
200 -
100 -
Crop Systems
ct corn-wht/soy
I... . ) ct soybean—soybean
ct corn-soybean
^H nt corn—wht/soy
Uli nt soybean-soybean
OmiJ nt corn-soybean
nt corn-corn
_ i 1. Crop adjustments as soil erosion under base condition is re-
duced 20% and 40%.
Base 20% 40%
Nitrate Percolation Reduction
i 2. Crop adjustments as nitrate percolation under base condi-
tion is reduced 20% and 40%.
cost equalled $2.18/kg ($2.45/pound) of
nitrate percolation reduced.
Conclusions
The control of agricultural nonpoint-
source pollution is complicated by the vari-
ety of possible pollutants, pathways of move-
ment, and interactions among crops and
management practices over varying soil con-
ditions. Our simulation results indicate that
reducing agricultural nonpoint-source pollu-
tion would require flexible control guide-
lines that should be tailored to water quali-
ty problems in a specific site or region, for
example, control of surface or subsurface N
losses. Relying only on erosion control pro-
grams to combat water quality problems
could be inefficient or counterproductive if
improved water quality depends upon con-
trolling subsurface N losses. •
Reducing surface N runoff for a represen-
tative farm on the Upper Eastern Shore of
Maryland proved to be compatible with tra-
ditional methods of controlling soil erosion.
Cropping adjustments that reduced erosion
rates also reduced field losses of surface N.
Planting winter cover crops and adopting no-
till management practices were effective in
reducing surface losses. However, as pre-
dicted by the CREAMS model, resulting
simulated nitrate percolation losses were
greater, suggesting a trade-off between sur-
face and subsurface N control.
The importance of making trade-offs be-
tween controlling movement of surface and
subsurface pollutants was reemphasized
when nitrate percolation losses were re-
duced. Large decreases in nitrate percolation
losses were achieved by shifting from corn
to soybeans and from no-till to conventional
tillage management, thereby increasing sur-
face losses of soil and N.
Any trade-off between controlling surface
and subsurface pollutant movement implies
that knowledge of why water quality is de-
teriorating, for example, N enrichment or
sedimentation, is not sufficient. It is also
necessary to know how water quality is de-
teriorating, for example, surface or subsur-
face pathways. Larger income reductions but
lower unit costs of controlling nitrate per-'
.eolation suggest that the pathways of N
losses from agricultural systems need to be
assessed accurately. The risk of incorrectly
assessing the relative contribution of pollu-
tant loadings from surface and subsurface
sources would, at best, cause misallocation
of public funds and, at worst, accelerate the
deterioration of water quality.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Chesapeake Bay Program. 1988. Draft baywide
nutrient reduction strategy: Nutrient task force
group agreement committee report. U.S. En-
viron. Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Off., Annapolis, Md.
2. Crpwder, B.M., C. E. Young, D. I Epp, J. G.
Beierlein, H. B. Pionke, and E. J. Partenheimer.
1984. The effects on farm income of constrain-
ing soil and plant nutrient losses: An applica-
tion of the CREAMS simulation model. Bull.
WATER
45th Annual Meeting
Soil and Water
Conservation Society
July 29-August 1, 1990
Salt Lake City, Utah
Watch for registration
details in your mail in April
Call 1-800-541-4955
for travel information
850. Perm. Slate Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta., University
Park.
3. Gianessi, L. P., H. M. Peskin, P. Crosson, and
C. Puffer. 1986. Nonpoint-source pollution: Are
cropland controls the answer?'' J. Soil and Water
Cons. 41(5): 215-218.
4. Knisel, W. G., ed. 1980. CREAMS: A field scale
model for chemicals, runoff and erosion from
agricultural management systems. Cons. Res.
Rpt. No. 26. Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr.,
Washington, D.C.
5. Knisel, W. G., R. A. Leonard, and E. B.
Oswald. 1982. Nonpoint-source pollution con-
trol: A resource conservation perspective. J. Soil
and Water Cons. 37(2): 196-199.
6. Magette, W. L., and R. A. Weismiller. 1984.
Agriculture and the bay. Fact Sheet 387. Univ.
Md. Coop. Ext. Serv., College Park.
7. Magette, W. L., F. M. Roka, B. V. Lessley, and
A. Shirmohammadi. 1988. CREAMS as a tool
for targeting AG BMP cost-sharing monies:
. Pollutant identification. Paper 88-2078. Am.
Soc. Agr. Eng., St. Joseph, Mich.
8. Ogg, C. W, and H. B. Pionke. 1986. Water
quality and new farm policy initiatives. J. Soil
and Water Cons. 41(1): 85-88.
9. Roka, Fritz M. 1988. Economic evaluation of
controlling field losses of selected agricultural
pollutants. M.S. thesis. Dept. Agr. and Resource
Econ., Univ. Md., College Park.
10. Soil Conservation Service. 1984. User's guide
for the CREAMS computer model. TR-72. U.S.
Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C.
11. Soil Conservation Service and the Maryland
Agricultural Experiment Station. 1964. Soil
survey of Caroline County, Maryland. U.S.
Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C.
12. Soil Conservation Service and the Maryland
Agricultural Experiment Station. 1966. Soil
survey of Queen Anne's County, Maryland. U.S.
Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C.
13. Soil Conservation Service and the Maryland
Agricultural Experiment Station. 1970. Soil
survey ofTalbot County, Maryland. U.S. Dept.
Agr., Washington, D.C.
14. Soil Conservation Service and the Maryland
Agricultural Experiment Station. 1973. Soil
survey of Cecil County, Maryland. U.S. Dept.
Agr., Washington, D.C.
15. Soil Conservation Service and the Maryland
Agricultural Experiment Station. 1982. Soil
survey of Kent County, Maryland. U.S. Dept.
Agr., Washington, D.C.
16. Staver, K. W., R. B. Brinsfield, and W. L.
Magette. 1988. Nitrogen export from Atlantic
Coastal Plain Soils. Paper 88-2040. Am. Soc.
Agr. Eng., St. Joseph, Mich.
17. Sun, R. J., ed. 1986. Regional aquifer-system
analysis program of the U.S. Geological Survey:
Summary of projects, 1978-84. Circ. 1002. U.S.
Geol. Surv., Reston, Va. D
January-February 1990 147
-------
Simulated effects of rapeseed
production alternatives on
pollution potential in the
Georgia Coastal Plain
D. L Thomas, M. C. Smith, R. A. Leonard, and F.J.K. daSilva
ABSTRACT: Long-term model simulations have the potential for economical evaluation
of alternative management practice effects on pollutant yields for new crops. The CREAMS
and GLEAMS models were used to evaluate alternative planting dates, nitrogen (N) ap-
plications, soil types, and soil slopes (typical of the Georgia Coastal Plain) planted to
rapeseed for the potential effects of these four variables on sediment, nutrient, and pesticide
losses. Planting dates significantly affected runoff; total N leached; soluble and sediment-
bound f. sulfoxide (in nmoff); soluble, sediment-bound, and leached f. sulfone (metabolites
of the nematiddefenamiphos); and soluble and leached metalaxil (fungicide). The first
planting date, October 12, showed a significant reduction in losses compared to the third
planting date, November 9. An evaluation of split N applications indicated a significant
reduction in leached N as the number of splits increased for the same total N applied.
Several of the sediment-bound pollutants in nmoff increased significantly as slope increased.
Tliere is potential for reducing runoff losses by selecting soils with less slope or by using
alternative management practices. The soil type influenced the pollutant losses in most
cases. Greenville sandy clay loam had the greater losses of runoff-based pollutants, and
Tifton loamy sand showed higher losses due to leaching for most parameters. Depending
on the soil type and slope, careful selection of management practices can reduce the poten-
tial yield in rapeseed production.
OILSEED rape or rapeseed (Brassica
napus L.) is a viable crop in many
areas of tire world. In fact, rapeseed oil com-
mands about 10% of the world oilseed
market and is expected to remain at this level
in the future (18). Rapeseed is a versatile
crop; varieties have been developed for con-
sumptive (vegetable oil), industrial (lubri-
cant), and fuel applications (77). Most cur-
rent rapeseed varieties are adapted to the
cooler climatic conditions of Canada and
Northern Europe. New varieties are being
developed with vernalization (chilling time)
requirements that are more reasonable for
the southeastern United States.
The potential for rapeseed production in
the Southeast is high because of the long
growing season and favorable climatic con-
ditions. Rapeseed grown in the Southeast
usually is planted in the fell and harvested
D. L T}tomas and M. C, Smith are assistant pro-
feaors with thf Agricultural Engineering Depart-
ment, University (/Georgia, Coastal Plain Experi-
ment Station, Tifton, 31793; R. A. Leonard is a soil
scientist Mth the Southeast Watershed Research
Lobomioij:, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. De-
partment (/Agriculture, Tlfton; and EJ.K. daSilva
is a fanner research engineer ufr/i the Agricultural
Engineering Department, University of Georgia,
CoasKil Plain Experiment Station, Tifton. Work
reported was supported by federal Hatch (Regional
Project S-2H anil others) and state funds and par-
tially by USDA and U.S. Department ofEnergyfunds
under Specific Cooperative Agreements No.
SM3YK-S-6 and 19X-9I324C.
in May or early June; thus, it has strong
double-cropping potential (25).
Rapeseed also may provide sufficient
canopy to be an alternative winter cover crop
for reducing soil erosion (6, 8,17). Unfor-
tunately, there is little data available to
evaluate accurately the erosion reduction
potential of rapeseed. In Canada, the U.S.
Northwest, and many areas of Europe, rain-
fall events are not as severe as the high-
intensity, frontal and convective storms
typical of the U.S. Southeast. In addition,
the deep, volcanic ash-based soils of the
Northwest are not susceptible to soil erosion
under long-term, low-intensity rainfall
events.
Some background
Recent legislation (1985 Food Security
Act's Conservation Title) is a needed step
toward soil erosion reduction (16). Several
state programs list soil loss restrictive crop-
ping rotations and tillage alternatives that are
acceptable under the conservation provisions
(7). Other programs identify generic crops
based on residue production rather than
specific crop rotations (16). The potential
exists for a wide variety of planning pro-
grams that will provide needed soil loss
reductions. Many of these plans, however,
may not take into account potential new
cropping systems and the absolutes asso-
ciated with soil loss thresholds, and the
ability to estimate or measure the soil loss
is questionable (5).
Eroded sediment is not the only pollutant
to be addressed. Nutrients and pesticides in
surface waters and groundwater have be-
come driving forces for new research and
regulatory programs. Unfortunately, the cost
and time required to perform long-term field
studies to evaluate the pollution reduction
potential of many possible cropping systems
is unreasonable.
There are models available that can be
used to identify potential alternatives in
cropping management prior to extensive
field study. SSAM (1), HSP (9), NFS (4),
ARM (3), the Wisconsin model (19),
CREAMS (11), and GLEAMS (75) all ap-
parently have characteristics for evaluating
agricultural management effects on surface
and subsurface flow, chemical movement,
and sediment yield (20). These models have
been used in the Southeast. Our selection
of a model was based on the widespread ac-
ceptability, use, and the degree of verifica-
tion in the Georgia Coastal Plain. Based on
this criteria, CREAMS and GLEAMS were
selected. GLEAMS (75) is a new model de-
veloped from CREAMS (77). Both models
provide estimates of sediment and pesticide
yield for field-sized areas under different
management scenarios. GLEAMS also pre-
dicts groundwater loadings—vertical flux
past the root zone—for pesticides (14).
To evaluate the pollution potential asso-
ciated with a new crop, such as rapeseed,
one must assess the possible crop manage-
ment alternatives. Rapeseed can be planted
in the Southeast during a longer period than
in the cooler climate of the Northwest.
Planting date studies indicate that seed yield
and biomass production remain relatively
constant over a month-long planting inter-
val (24). How these different planting dates
may affect the potential sediment, nutrient,
and pesticide losses has not been addressed.
Climatic variation is a primary factor that
may affect pollutant loss estimates through
different planting dates. Leonard and Knisel
(14) simulated the effects of different plant-
ing dates on pesticide leaching losses for a
corn crop on two representative soil types
of the Georgia Coastal Plain for 50 years of
historical rainfall. They evaluated a cross-
section of different pesticide types with
combinations of application methods, sur-
face and injected; half-lives, 3 and 30 days;
and partition coefficients, KQC. They found
that the half-life of a pesticide had a much
larger effect on the loss of pesticides than
the planting date. The longer half-life pes-
ticides increased the total leaching losses by
as much as an order of magnitude over the
shorter half-life pesticides. There was a con-
sistent effect due to planting date; the earlier
148 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
date, March 15, had lower leaching losses
than the later planting date, April 1, for the
three-day half-life pesticides. The opposite
was true for the 30-day half-life pesticides.
The historical climatic period from late
March to early April has a high percentage
of percolation-producing storm events. The
researchers concluded that the leached pes-
ticide losses could be reduced on the average
by timing the planting based on the pesticide
type to be used. This study was performed
on a warm-season crop, and the potential ef-
fects of planting dates on pesticide and other
pollutant losses in the fall season were not
addressed.
Knisel and associates illustrated the poten-
tial effects of split nutrient applications on
nutrient losses using simulation results from
the CREAMS model (72). In one example,
a single fertilizer application of 140 kg/ha
(125 pounds/acre) of nitrogen (N) was ap-
plied to corn at planting and compared to
a split application of 28 kg/ha (25 pounds/
acre) N at planting and- 112 kg/ha (100
pounds/acre) N 30 days after corn emer-
gence. The N leaching losses for the single
N application were nearly double the split-
application losses. There were no significant
differences in N losses in runoff due to split
applications. The combination of leaching
and increased denitrification depleted the N
supply and provided less N for plant uptake
on the single N application. Increasing nu-
trient application splits, for the same total
nutrient supply, should continue to reduce
N losses. However, these results, measured
or predicted, currently are not available in
the literature.
These studies illustrate the potential ap-
plication of models for predicting some pol-
lution components, but the total pollutant ef-
fect of a particular crop has not been eval-
uated statistically. By simulating alternative
management practices on a particular crop,
we may be able to provide an optimal range
of best management practices to minimize
the potential pollution associated with that
crop's production.
The objectives of our research were to an-
ticipate rapeseed as a new crop in the Georgia
Coastal Plain and evaluate, first, planting
date effects on potential soil, nutrient, and
pesticide losses in runoff; sediment-bound
nutrient and pesticide losses; and nutrient
and pesticide losses due to leaching and,
second, the potential benefits of split N
applications on runoff, sediment-bound, and
leached N losses for two soils characteristic
of the Georgia Coastal Plain. In addition,
we evaluated the potential effects through-
out the range of slopes associated with the
soil types for the above conditions.
Study methods
Model inputs. Simulation of nutrient and
pesticide leaching and surface runoff loss-
es necessitated use of both the CREAMS
(11) and GLEAMS (75) models because
GLEAMS does not have a nutrient compo-
nent. As a result, we used CREAMS to esti-
mate the nutrient loss components and
GLEAMS for the pesticide and sediment
yield components.
The soil types chosen for the analysis
were a Tifton loamy sand (typically-eroded,
fine-loamy, siliceous, thermic, Plinthic Pa-
leudult) and a Greenville sandy clay loam
(clayey, kaolinitic, thermic, Rhodic Paleu-
dult). These soil types are representative of
the Georgia Coastal Plain, and both have
suitable characteristics for rapeseed produc-
tion. Current research indicates that high-
sand, low clay-content soils (high leaching
potential) may not be adaptable for rapeseed
because of the major N and micronutrient
requirements of the crop (2). Also, the poor
seed/soil contact of sandy soils reduces the
emergence of rapeseed.
The Tifton loamy sand typically has sur-
face slopes between 2% and 5% were used.
For this analysis, slopes of 2, 3.5 and 5%
were used. The Greenville sandy clay loam
has surface slopes of 4 to 12%; slopes of
4, 8, and 12%, were used. For all simula-
tions, the slope shape (overland) was as-
sumed to be uniform, with a constant slope
length of 200 m (656 feet).
Table 1 illustrates several of the input
parameters for the two soil types used in the
analysis. Both soils fall into the B runoff
Table 1. Soil characteristics used in the simulations.
Soil Characteristic
Effective saturated conductivity
Soil evaporation parameter
Clay fraction*
Silt fraction
Sand fraction
Soil horizons
Soil horizon depths from surface
Soil porosity by horizon
Assumed field capacity
Assumed wilting point
Organic matter content
(mm/hr)
(mm)
(mm/mm)
(mm/mm)
(mm/mm)
(% of soil mass)
Tifton
Loamy Sand
8.4
3.75
0.08
0.12
0.80
1 2
254.0 381.0
0.40 0.40
0.25 0.25
0.05 0.05
0.70 0.70
Greenville
Sandy Clay Loam
3.3
4.00
0.25
0.20
0.55
1 2
152.4 381.0
0.40 0.40
0.30 0.35
0.18 0.22
0.88 0.55
"In the surface soil layer exposed to erosion.
classification. A curve number of 75.0 was
used on both soils by assuming rapeseed as
a small grain, planted in straight rows, and
with a good hydrologic condition (23). Fur-
ther description of these soils can be ob-
tained from soil surveys (26, 27) and other
publications (13, 14).
One of the model inputs is the leaf area
index. Leaf area index in this study was de-
fined as the area of the plant leaves divided
by the soil surface area. Because leaf area
index is an input for evapotranspiration esti-
mation and, thus, soil water content, repre-
sentative leaf area index values are essential.
Limited data are available on the leaf area
index of rapeseed. Wright and associates
(29) evaluated the leaf area index of several
Australian rapeseed varieties in northern
Victoria, but the conversion of these values
to the climatic and soil conditions of the
Georgia Coastal Plain was not reasonable.
In addition, the leaf area index values in that
study were obtained on only three dates dur-
ing the growing season.
Leaf area index values were based on
rapeseed canopy cover data, which was con-
verted to leaf area index. Thomas and
daSilva (24) evaluated three rapeseed vari-
eties (Westar, Cascade, and Dwarf essex)
for three planting dates on a Tifton loamy
sand in 1984 and 1985. Canopy cover esti-
mates were obtained with overhead photo-
graphs of the rapeseed throughout the sea-
son. These slides were processed using a
projection/gridding technique to provide an
estimate of plant canopy cover (25). In the
1985 season, Thomas and daSilva (24)
measured the leaf area index in combina-
tion with canopy cover estimates. Their lim-
ited leaf area index measurements were not
sufficient to provide the data required for
our study, but there was sufficient data to
estimate the relationship between leaf area
index and canopy cover. A regression anal-
ysis between leaf area index and canopy
cover for the first planting date, using aver-
age values from both Westar and Cascade
varieties, gave an r2 of 0.95. As a result, we
assumed the canopy cover values were rep-
resentative of the leaf area index measure-
ments of the rapeseed growth. Thomas and
daSilva (24) noted that the effects on canopy
cover of the three planting dates, October 12
and 25 and November 9, were negligible
after January 31, so a single leaf area index
curve was used for all three planting dates
after January 31. Figure 1 illustrates the leaf
area index (converted canopy cover) values
used for the three planting dates in our analy-
sis. Both CREAMS and GLEAMS estimate
that leaf area indexes greater than 3.0 will
result in maximum potential transpiration,
so we selected the value of 3.0 to represent
100% canopy cover.
January-February 1990 149
-------
Several erosion-based soil parameters
were assumed to be the same for both soil
types. These parameters included a kinemat-
ic viscosity of 1.55E-06 mVsec, a soil weight
density of 13.3 KN/m3, and a Yalin constant
of 0.7. Other erosion-based parameters were
assumed as the default in the models. We
obtained the soil loss ratios for rapeseed
from Wischmeier and Smith (28) through
Table H-20 in Knisel (77). Line 152 of the
table was used for the values, which repre-
sents grain after summer fallow with mini-
mum row-crop residues prior to planting
rapeseed. Manning's n values were estimat-
ed using Table 11-26 from Knisel (11). Con-
ventional tillage was assumed in all cases.
We set the effective rooting depth for rape-
seed at 381 mm (15 inches) and the water-
shed area for simulation at 4.0 ha (10 acres).
We based the nutrient application se-
quences on actual N and phosphorus (P) ap-
plied to rapeseed in a production practice
study during the 1987-1988 season (2).
These included 157 kg/ha (140 pounds/acre)
N in five splits (Table 2) and 50 kg/ha (45
pounds/acre) P applied on the planting date
in all test combinations. A planting date
(Julian) of 294 was used for all tests with
the N split evaluation.
The pesticide applications for the planting
date study were actual pesticide amounts and
dates from the rapeseed production practice
study (2). Rapeseed production is highly af-
fected by soil and seed-borne pathogens,
such as root knot nematodes, stem rot, root
M
0)
of
o>
0.5
0.0
10/1
12/1
2/1
Calendar
6/1
Date
Figure 1. Leaf area index values for the three planting dates, October 12 (1), October 25 (2), and
November 9 (3), used in the simulations.
rot, and other pests (aphids and weeds).
Table 3 shows the pesticide characteristics,
dates of application, and method of appli-
cation.
The pesticide half-life and KQC were not
determined for the specific soils in this
study, but were obtained from the default
parameters in the GLEAMS software. These
parameters often vary by factors of two to
three between specific sites and methods of
determination (21). Therefore, the results of
this simulation are best interpreted as rep-
resentative of a range of pesticide classes and
application methods and not a prediction of
absolute losses.
Table 2. Amount of N applied for each treatment on the indicated Julian dates.
Nitrogen Applied by Julian Date
Treatment
Planting date test
Nitrogen split test
2 applications
3 applications
4 applications
5 applications
PD*
28
78
52
39
28
343
22
39
22
20
40
52
39
40
63
33
78
52
39
33
83
33
33
Total
156
156
156
156
158
*PD corresponds to the planting date, which was Julian date 294 for the N split test and days
280, 294, and 308 for the planting date test.
Table 3. Pesticides applied for rapeseed production
Application
Incorporation
Pesticide
Chtorothalonil
Fanamiphos
F. sulfbxlde
F. sulfone
MetalaxU
Acephale
Trilluralln
Description
Fungicide
Nematicide
N. (metab.)
N. (metab.)
Fungicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Solubility
(ppm)
0.6
400.0
400.0
400.0
7,100.0
650,000
1.0
Half-Life*
(days)
18.0
4.0
42.0
18.0
50.0
2.0
60.0
Date
(Mian)
112
PPD§
PPD
PPD
PPD
318,
345
PPD
Rate
(kg/ha)
0.58
6.73
0.28
0.75
1.68
Depth
(cm)
1.0*
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
Koc*t
4,000
400
300
200
60
300
1,200
fKoc Is the partition coefficient; ratio of concentration of pesticide on organic carbon to con-
centration of pesticide in water.
±The depth of incorporation of 1.0 cm is used for surface application.
§PPD corresponds to the day preceding the applicable planting date or pre-emergence application.
All of the simulation parameters related
to the planting date—pre-emergence nutrient
and pesticide applications, soil loss ratios,
and Manning's n—were adjusted to conform
with each planting date in the different in-
put data sets.
The rainfall data used in the simulations
was a 50-year record (1935-1985) from
Tifton, Georgia. Average annual rainfall was
1,195 mm (47 inches) (13). Figure 2 illus-
trates the minimum, average, and maximum
monthly rainfall for the entire 50-year rec-
ord. The mean monthly air temperatures
used in the simulations came from the Tift
County soil survey (27). Temperatures
ranged from 9.3°C (48°F) in January to
26.9 °C (80 °F) in July and August. The
mean monthly solar radiation values (70)
ranged from 9.3 MJ/cm2/day in December
to 23.9 MJ/cm2/day in June. We used the
same solar radiation and temperature data
for each year of simulation.
Statistical analyses. The statistical analy-
ses for the planting date and nutrient ap-
plication studies need to be qualified due to
the type of data generated. Each annual
Value from the simulation is the sum over
the period between Julian dates 274 (October
1) and 153 (May 31). This means that only
8 months of the year are analyzed—those
months associated with rapeseed produc-
tion. The period between June 1 and Sep-
tember 30 was assumed to be in fallow. The
relative effects of soil type, slope, planting
date, and chemical application were the
main concern and not the total annual pol-
lutant values.
Another characteristic of the statistical
analysis that is important is the sensitivity
of the tests. With 50 years of data (50 sam-
ple values), the tests are highly sensitive to
small variations between treatments. There-
fore, a slight change in output values may
produce a statistically significant effect.
150 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
Tine potential effects of planting date, soil
type, and slope on nutrient and pesticide
loss, runoff, and erosion were evaluated with
an analysis of variance using the general
linear models procedure (22). The above
analyses also were performed for each of the
two soil types. The potential effects of nu-
trient application alternatives, soil type, and
slope on N loss were evaluated with the
same tests as with the planting dates. Dun-
can's multiple range test was used to indicate
the relative significant differences between
soil types, slopes, planting dates, and nu-
trient applications.
In all cases of the analysis of variance,
highly significant and significant differences
are indicated by probabilities exceeding 0.01
and 0.05, respectively. Duncan's multiple
range test is based on probabilities exceeding
0.05.
Results and discussion
Planting date study. Two parameters of
primary concern are the various treatment
effects on runoff and sediment yield. Plant-
ing date had a significant effect on runoff.
Because the Soil Conservation Service curve
number approach is used to calculate runoff
and runoff is based on soil water conditions
at the time of the storm, the relative effects
of the planting dates (differences in plant
growth) and soil water-holding capacity
were exhibited in the runoff. Duncan's mul-
tiple range test indicated that the runoff asso-
ciated with planting date 3 was significantly
higher than the runoff for planting date 1.
Because the soil remained relatively un-
covered, except for weeds, for a longer pe-
riod under planting date 3, the potential for
increased runoff is reasonable.
The planting date effect was present on the
Tifton loamy sand (when analyzed separate-
ly) but was not present for the Greenville
sandy clay loam. The mean statistics showed
a 25 % increase in total runoff, during the
8-month period of interest, from planting
date 1 to 3 for the Tifton soil, while the
Greenville soil had an 11% increase. Ap-
parently, the Greenville sandy clay loam has
sufficiently high slopes to negate the effect
due to surface cover reductions, that is, dif-
ferent planting dates. As surface slope de-
creased, the influence of surface cover be-
came more pronounced.
Soil type had a highly significant effect
on runoff. Total runoff during the 8-month
period on the Greenville soil was 18%
higher than the total runoff from the Tifton
soil. This was predominantly a result of the
different water-holding capacities of the soils
(Table 1).
The tests did not indicate a significant ef-
fect on sediment yield due to planting dates,
although there was a slight increase in sedi-
Figure 2. Average monthly rainfall character-
istics (minimum, average, and maximum) for the
period 1935 to 1985 at Tifton, Georgia.
S H
ooeoeTHton is
***** Greenville SCL
Slope (percent)
Figure 3. Soil type and slope effects on sedi-
ment yield.
If
065-
O
£
*<«-
0)
a!
t-l 45-
oeeoe Tilton LS .
***** Greenville SCL __
"" "
o- — "
~——--^^^
4-
2 3
Planting Date
Figure 4. Soil type and planting date effects on
total leached N.
ment yield as the planting date was delayed.
Presumably, the'effects due to soil type and
slope outweighted the potential effects due
to different planting dates. Soil type had a
highly significant effect on sediment yield.
This was obviously a characteristic of the
different slopes between the soil types. A
highly significant interaction existed be-
tween soil type and slope. Figure 3 illus-
trates the change in sediment yield due to
the simulated soil and slope conditions.
There were significant increases in sediment
yield for each increase in slope (Duncan's
multiple range test). The average sediment
yield was 190% higher on the Greenville soil
than on the Tifton soil. Sediment yield in-
creased nonlinearly as the slope increased
(Figure 3). The slope effect, of course, was
based on a sloped plane for all simulations.
The slope effect may have been different
with a nonuniform slope and variations in
the length factor. Also, the slopes were not
comparable between soil types due to the
different slope percentages used.
One of the primary areas of concern in
our study was the potential for reducing ero-
sion with rapeseed. Average soil loss per
season exceeded the "acceptable limit" of
2.2 t/ha (1 ton/acre) (Figure 3). Additional
management practices probably would be
necessary for all slope conditions on the
Greenville sandy clay loam and probably for
slopes greater than 2% on the Tifton loam
sand. The combination of contour farming
and terraces may provide a 30 to 70 % reduc-
tion in soil loss (28). However, even with
the maximum potential benefit of these two
practices, it is questionable whether rape-
seed can help to maintain an acceptable level
of soil loss for the highly sloped Greenville
soil.
The simulated results of N and P losses
showed that planting date had a highly
significant effect on leached N. No
statistically significant planting date effects
occurred on total losses of either soluble or
sediment-bound N or P in runoff. Denitri-
fication also was not significantly affected
by planting dates. On the average, leached
N losses accounted for about 88 % of the
total N losses on the Tifton soil and about
72% of the losses on the Greenville soil.
Therefore, efforts to minimize N leaching
may result in greater total pollution reduc-
tion than efforts aimed at runoff losses.
Figure 4 shows the effects of planting date
and soil type (also a highly significant ef-
fect) on total leached N. The average leached
N loss from the Greenville soil was 29 % less
than the loss from the Tifton soil. Leached
N decreased for planting date 2, compared
with planting dates 1 and 3. But Duncan's
multiple range test showed that only plant-
ing date 3 had significantly higher leached
N losses than planting dates 1 and 2. When
the Tifton loamy sand was analyzed sep-
arately, the 10% reduction in leached N
losses between planting dates 3 and 2 were
the significant effects (Duncan's multiple
range test). On the Greenville soil, the 15 %
reduction in leached N losses between plant-
ing dates 3 and 1 and the 13 % reduction be-
tween planting dates 3 and 2 were signifi-
cant.
From these results, an apparent window
exists in the rainfall history that shows less
severe leaching events near October 25 than
November 9 or October 11. From the sum-
mary rainfall data (Figure 2). Less rainfall
occurs in October compared to other
months. Whether these event patterns are re-
January-February 1990 151
-------
peatable in the future remains to be seen.
Thus, there may be potential for reducing
N leaching losses by planting rapeseed in
late October rather than dates much earlier
or later. Of course, the variabilities associ-
ated with parameter estimation and model
relationships would indicate that the small
change in leached N losses between the first
and second planting dates, especially for the
Greenville soil, is probably not sufficient to
warrant si change in planting dates due to N
leaching alone. A combination of the effects
from the other chemicals may provide a
stronger conclusion.
One characteristic of the simulation pro-
cedures that may haw influenced this result
is the constant tillage, planting, and nutrient
and pesticide application dates each year. In
some years, a rainfall event may have oc-
curred in conjunction with one of these ac-
tivities and caused a much greater effect than
under actual situations where a farmer may
anticipate rainfall events and adjust manage-
ment schedules accordingly. An additional
modelling routine to adjust planting and ap-
plication dates that are coincident with rain-
fall events may be necessary.
Soil type had highly significant effects on
soluble N and P losses and sediment-bound
N and P losses (in runoff). In all cases, soil
loss on the Greenville silty clay loam was
greater than on the Tifton loamy sand. On
the average, about 14% and 3% of the total
N losses were attributed to sediment-bound
N for the Greenville and the Tifton soils, re-
spectively. However, there was a highly sig-
nificant interaction between soil type and
slope for the sediment-bound N and P
losses. With steep slopes, sediment-bound
N contributed 23% and 4% of the total N
lost on the Greenville and Tifton soils,
respectively. A 350% increase in sediment-
bound N losses occurred from slope 1 to 3
on both soil types. This increase was not as
severe as the sediment yield increase due to
slope (over 430% from Figure 3), but the
need to reduce the potential erosion and
sediment-bound nutrient losses with ap-
propriate management practices is apparent.
The relative losses for soluble and sediment-
bound P were in relation to the N losses,
but the magnitude of the P losses was less
than 40% of the N losses.
Denitrification contributed 12% and 8%
of the total N losses for the Greenville and
Tifton soils, respectively. Soil type had
highly significant effects on denitrification,
although the actual simulated differences
were minimal. Denitrification in the Green-
ville soil was about 28% higher than for the
Tifton soil.
The pesticides of major importance for the
planting date study were those associated
with pre-emergence application. Fenami-
phos, metalaxil, and trifluralin were the pre-
emergence pesticides used on the rapeseed
(Table 3). The simulated pesticide losses in
runoff—soluble and sediment-bound—and
leached through the soil profile indicated
that leaching would be the major contributor
to pesticide loss for most of these pesticides,
except trifluralin, on these soils (Figure 5).
The total relative pesticide losses (Figure 5)
can be used with the total application amounts
(Table 3) to estimate the total loss as a per-
centage of application. When analyzing the
leaching losses, planting date had a highly
significant effect on leaching only for meta-
laxil (fungicide). Leaching below the root
Pesticide Lost (g/ha)
§o> to
0 G
\
1
I
I
1
T G T B T
L S L S L
S C S C S
L L
I
I
G T G
S L S
C S C
L L
3457 Pesticide No.
VJJA Leached N^VH Sol. in runoff I^A^I Ad. in runoff
Figure 5. Average contributions from soluble
and sediment-bound runoff and leaching for the
pesticides f. sulfoxide (3), f. sulfone (4), metal-
axil (5) and trifluralin (7) lost from the Tifton
loamy sand (TLS) and the Greenville sandy clay
loam (GSCL).
Planting Date
Figure 6. Soil type and planting date effects on
leaching losses of the fungicide metalaxil.
Nitrogen Applications
Figure 7. Soil type and N application technique
effects on N leaching losses.
zone accounted for 99% of the total metalax-
il lost. Leaching increased as the planting
date was delayed, with simulated increases
of 68% and 46% from planting date 1 to 3
for the Tifton and the Greenville soils, re-
spectively (Figure 6). Metalaxil is highly
water-soluble (7,100 ppm) and may have a
relatively long half-life (50 days), which are
ideal properties for leaching. The 50-day
period following the earlier planting date is
drier than the same period following the
later planting dates; thus, there is increased
leaching potential for the later dates.
The only other statistically (highly) sig-
nificant effect on leaching losses was a soil
type effect on trifluralin (herbicide). The
leaching losses were about 37% higher for
the Greenville soil than for the Tifton soil
(Figure 5). This may be associated with the
differences in organic matter in the lower
soil horizons and the partition coefficient of
tfifiuralin because trifluralin is strongly ad-
sorbed. The leaching losses of trifluralin
were, however, relatively small in both soils.
The planting date effects on runoff losses
(soluble) were highly significant for f. sul-
fone and metalaxil and were significant for
f. sulfoxide. However, these effects were
tempered by the fact that less than 2% of
the losses of these three pesticides were in
the soluble form in runoff. These losses are
well below any level of biological conse-
quence^ In all cases, the first planting date
showed significantly less pesticide loss than
the third planting date. The soluble tri-
fluralin loss was the major contributor to
total trifluralin losses. The ratio of soluble
to total trifluralin losses was 70% and 53 %
for the Tifton and Greenville soils, respec-
tively (highly significant soil type effect).
The persistence and characteristics of tri-
fluralin may be a potential problem for this
type of application on rapeseed.
The planting date effect on sediment-
bound pesticide loss in runoff was signifi-
cant for f. sulfone, but the total loss was less
than 1%. As with soluble runoff losses, the
first planting date showed less total loss
compared to the later planting dates. The
soil/slope interaction had highly significant
effects on sediment-bound losses of f. sulf-
oxide, f. sulfone, and trifluralin. Losses of
all three pesticides were greater for the
Greenville soil and for increasing slope.
Sediment-bound fenamiphos also was af-
fected by soil type and slope differences in
a manner similar to the other pesticides. The
only difference was a reduced effect due to
slope. From the first to the third slope, sed-
iment-bound fenamiphos losses increased
significantly.
Nitrogen application study. The evalua-
tion of different split applications of N
showed that leaching was the major source
152 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
of N loss in Veached water and runoff. As
indicated in the planting date study, leached
N losses contributed about 88% and 72%
of the total losses from the Tifton loamy sand
and the Greenville sandy clay loam, respec-
tively. Application had a highly significant
effect on leached N losses, with a decrease
in N loss as the number of splits increased.
Duncan's multiple range test showed signifi-
cant differences between the two, three, and
five split applications (Table 2). Leached N
losses decreased about 24% from the two
to five split applications on each soil type.
When each soil type was analyzed separate-
ly, the three, four, and five split applications
did not show a significant difference. Figure
7 illustrates the effects of soil type on
leached N losses due to nutrient application.
The effects on soluble and sediment-
bound N and leached N due to soil type and
slope were similar to those exhibited in the
planting date study and are not discussed
here. Increasing the number of split applica-
tions of N appears to be effective for reduc-
ing N losses, but the statistical analysis and
simulated results indicate a reduction in ef-
fectiveness for three or more applications.
Additional simulation and field data will be
required to evaluate the N losses as the splits
approach the level of spoon-fed or prescrip-
tion application.
Nutrient applications had highly signifi-
cant effects on denitrified N losses similar-
ly to the leaching results. The two split ap-
plication had significantly higher denitrifica-
tion losses as compared to the other splits.
In addition, the four split application showed
significantly lower losses compared to the
two and three split applications. When the
soils were analyzed separately, only the two
split application had significantly higher
losses of N by denitrification compared to
the other splits. Later in the growing season,
conditions probably were more favorable for
denitrification. The most effective applica-
tion split for reductions in denitrification
losses appears to be four splits for these par-
ticular conditions. A 29% decrease in de-
nitrification losses was achieved by increas-
ing the splits from two to four.
Conclusions
The possibility for reducing potential pol-
lution from rapeseed production in the
Georgia Coastal Plain through selected man-
agement practices has been demonstrated
with simulation. Of the three planting dates
chosen—October 12 and 25 and November
9, the first and second dates exhibited the
best potential for pollution reduction. In
some cases, such as soluble runoff losses
and leaching of the fungicide metalaxil,
significantly less pesticide loss occurred for
the first planting date compared to the other
planting dates. None of the simulated pol-
lutants showed a significant reduction in
losses with the third planting date.
Previous studies have shown that the win-
dow for rapeseed planting is fairly large,
with little effect on yield between the earliest
and latest planting dates. Additional research
is underway to evaluate the limits of the
planting window for rapeseed in the Georgia
Coastal Plain.
Leaching of nutrients and pesticides should
be a major concern for production. The use
of split N applications probably will help to
reduce leaching and denitrification to a cer-
tain degree, but a reduction in the total
nutrient application or evaluation of spoon-
feeding may be necessary. Additional re-
search is needed on the balance between
productivity level and the economics of nu-
trients applied and lost. Estimated pesticide
leaching losses were substantial, as high as
9% of the application for metalaxil. Alter-
native pesticides with shorter half-lives and
improved characteristics may be necessary
to reduce these potential losses.
Soil type and slope affected pollutant yield
in many cases. Improved conservation prac-
tices, such as reduced tillage, no-till, terraces,
etc., are required to reduce potential sediment
and sediment-bound nutrient losses if rape-
seed is to be grown on soils similar to the
Greenville sandy clay loam. The high-slope
sandy clay loams may not be suited to rape-
seed production, but field evaluation of this
particular scenario may be necessary before
these type soils are completely ruled out.
These results are based on simulations and
are not meant to provide actual pollutant yield
values for the different scenarios tested. In
fact, measurements of pollutant yields on
particular field studies may be orders of
magnitude from the simulated values. How-
ever, the relative nature of the analysis should
provide a reasonable estimate of the changes
in pollutant yields that can be expected for
rapeseed production under the tested con-
ditions, on average.
For interpretation and use of these results,
it is appropriate to provide an example of
a potential application. Consider a condition
where rapeseed is to be planted in the Coastal
Plain and the land region is in a groundwater
recharge area where leaching would be a
major concern. Consider also, that N is the
major potential problem in the groundwater
resource. Based on the rapeseed production
practices in this simulation study, one could
expect a 30% decrease in leached N on the
average by planting rapeseed around October
25, versus November 9, on a Greenville
sandy clay loam, versus a Tifton loamy sand.
In addition, by applying N in five split ap-
plications, versus two, one may expect an ad-
ditional 23% decrease in leached N. This is
only one potential scenario and others could
be evaluated using the same procedures.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
REFERENCES CITED
Betson, R. P. 1972. Storm hydrographs using a
double-triangle model. Res. Paper No. 8. Tenn.
Valley Authority, Knoxville.
Breve, M. A., D. L. Thomas, and P. A. Raymer.
1988. Rapeseed production practice evaluation.
Agr. Eng. Dept., Univ. Ga., Tifton.
Crawford, N. H., and A. S. Donigian, Jr. 1973.
Pesticide transport and runoff model for agri-
cultural lands. EPA-660/2-74-013. Off. Res. and
Develop., U.S. Environ. Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 211 pp.
Donigian, Jr., A. S., and N. H. Crawford. 1976.
Agricultural runoff management (ARM) model.
Hydrocomp Inc., Palo Alto, Calif.
Gray, M. 1988. What constitutes compliance?
J. Soil and Water Cons. 43(1): 39.
Hairston, J. E., J. O. Sanfoid, V. H. Watson.
1984. Rape as a winter oilseed crop in Missis-
sippi. Miss. Agr. and Forestry Exp. Sta. Res.
Highlights (June). 7-8.
Holtsclaw, L. 1988. Conservation planning by
hydrologic units. J. Soil and Water Cons. 43(1)-
47-48.
Hoveland, C. S., J. W. Odom, R. L. Haaland,
and M. W. Alison, Jr. 1981. Rapeseed in Ala-
bama. Bull. No. 532. Ala. Agr. Exp. Sta., Au-
burn University.
Hydrocomp. 1976. Hydrocomp simulation pro-
gramming operations manual. Hydrocomp Inc.
Palo Alto, Calif.
deJong, B. 1973. Net radiation received by a
horizontal surface at the Earth. Deft Univ. Press.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Knisel, W. Q, ed. 1980. CREAMS: A field-scale
model for chemicals, runoff, and erosion from
agricultural management systems. Cons. Res.
Rpt. No. 26. US. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C.
pp. 643.
Knisel, W. G., G. R. Foster, and R. A. Leonard.
1983. CREAMS: A system for evaluating man-
agement practices. In F. W. Schaller and G. W.
Bailey [eds.] Agricultural Management and
Water Quality. Iowa Univ. Press, Ames. pp.
178-199.
Knisel, W. G., and R. A. Leonard. 1986. Im-
pact of irrigation on groundwater quality in
humid areas. In M. Karamouz et al. [eds] Water
Forum '86: World Water Issues in Evolution.
Am. Soc. Civil Eng., New York, N.Y. pp.
1508-1515.
Leonard, R. A., and W. G. Knisel. 1988. Eval-
uating groundwater contamination potential
from herbicide use. Weed Tech. 2: 207-216.
Leonard, R. A., W. G. Knisel, and D. A. Still.
1987. GLEAMS: Groundwater loading effects of
agricultural management systems. Trans., ASAE
30(5): 1403-1418.
Lewis, S. L. 1988. The changing nature of con-
servation planning. J. Soil and Water Cons.
43(1): 40-43.
Lyons, S. 1987. Food, fuel and hope. Idaho, The
University 4(3): 11-14, 23-24.
Mielke, S. 1987. Outlook to 1995: World pro-
duction, consumption. Oilseeds Outlook, J. Am.
Oil Chemists' Soc. 64(3): 294-298.
Patterson, M. R. et al. 1974. A user's manual
for the FORTRAN IV version of the Wisconsin
hydrologic transport model. ORNL/NSF/EATC
-7,EDFB/IBP/74-9. Oak Ridge Nat. Lab., Oak
Ridge, Tenn.
Renard, K. G., W. J. Rawls, and M. M. Fogel.
1982. Currently available models. InC. T. Haan,
H. P. Johnson and D. L. Brakensiek [eds.] Hy-
drologic Modeling of Small Watersheds. Mono.
No. 5. Am. Soc. Agr. Eng., St. Joseph, Mich.
Rao, P. S. C, and J. Davidson, [eds.] 1982.
Retention and transformation of selected pesti-
cides and phosphorus in soil-water systems: A
critical review. EPA-600/3-82-060. U.S. Environ.
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
SAS Institute, Inc. 1982. Statistical Analysis
System. Gary, N. Car.
January-February 1990 153
-------
23. Schwab, G. a, R. K. Frcvert, T. W. Edminster,
and K, K. Barnes. 1981. Soil and water conser-
vation. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
24, ftwmas, D. L., and F.J.K. daSilva. 1987. Eval-
uation efrapesecd as a \vtnter cover crop in
south Georgia. Agr. Eng. Dept., Univ. Ga.
Tifl»n,
25. Thomas, D. L., FJ.K. daSilva, and W. A.
Croroer, 1988. /mage processing technique for
plant canopy cover evaluation. TVans., ASAE
31(2); 428-434.
26, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983. Soil sur-
vey of Dooly and Macon Counties, Georgia. Soil
Cons. Serv., Washington, D.C.
27. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983. Soil sur-
vey of lift County, Georgia. Soil Cons. Serv.,
Washington, D.C.
28. Wischmeier, W. H., and D. D. Smith. 1978. Pre-
dicting rainfall erosion losses. Agr. Handbk. No.
537. U.S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C. pp. 58.
29. Wright, G. C, C. J. Smith, and M. R. Wood-
roofe. 1988. The effect of irrigation and nitrogen
fertilizer on rapeseed (Brassica napus) produc-
tion in South-Eastern Australia. I. Growth and
seed yield. Irrig. Sci. 9: 1-13. D
The economic impact of
conservation compliance on
northern Missouri farms
Nyle C. Wollenhaupt and Melvin G. Blase
ABSTRACT: Individual farmers and other landowners are expected to base their decisions
on whether to participate in conservation compliance primarily on economic criteria, with
profitability being an important determinant. Crop budgets were developed to identify the
Crop rotation that mil generate the most net revenue for each of several conservation
practices that meet a soil erosion goal of T—the soil tolerance value. The budgets show
an economic admntage for soybeans over corn, wheat, and forages, regardless of the price
scenario, in northern Missouri. If compliance reduces soybean production, the impact
will be lower economic returns to land and management and, subsequently, to the value
of the land itself. Educational programs \vaming investors of this potential outcome would
be appropriate. Alternatives, such as long-term easements, new crops, and new cultural
practices, need to be developed to help farmers (landowners) shift out of agricultural
enterprises that are neither consistently profitable nor resource-sustainable.
THE conservation provisions of the 1985
RKK! Security Act have been justified
as programs that reduce soil erosion, re-
strain the production of surplus commodi-
ties, improve water quality, and benefit wild-
life. However, individual farmers and other
landowners are expected to base their deci-
sions on whether to participate in the vari-
ous programs primarily on economic crite-
ria, with profitability being an important de-
terminant. The attraction of the Conserva-
tion Reserve Program (CRP) is that rent is
paid. Fbr conservation compliance, to which
this analysis is directed, the incentive is dif-
ferent. It is the potential loss of various U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) program
benefits if the farmer or landowner fails to
comply that is at stake.
The hypothesis tested here is that the fete
Nyie C. Hbttenhaupt Is an assistant professor in
tht Department»/'Agronomy and Melvin G. Blase
i$ a pmftuor in the Department of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, University of Missouri, Columbia, 65211. The
authors tltank Harold F. Breimyer and Gary T.
Devinojbr miming the manuscript. This article is
a contribution from the Missouri Agricultural
Experiment Station, Journal Series Number 10,826.
154 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
of conservation compliance will be deter-
mined largely by local economic conditions.
In this analysis, we assumed that profitabil-
ity will be an important determinant to fu-
ture land use and that the land use will be
traditional forming. Although other types of
land use, such as agroforestry and fee hunt-
ing, are potential future alternative uses, we
assume farmers or landowners will continue
to choose more traditional agricultural en-
terprises that appear to them to be more
profitable and/or less risky.
We based our research on the supposition
that crop budgets are the building blocks for
determining the likely economic attractions
of different combinations of rotations and
mechanical practices that a farmer can use
to qualify for USDA program benefits under
conservation compliance. Hence, we took
a micro-oriented approach to identify the
crop rotation that will generate the most net
revenue for each of several conservation
practices designated to hold soil erosion un-
der the soil loss tolerance (T) value and
without soil conservation for soils aggre-
gated by land capability classes. The T value
is defined as "the maximum rate of soil ero-
sion that will permit a high level of crop pro-
ductivity to be sustained economically and
indefinitely" (3).
Alternative conservation systems, which
allow soil erosion to exceed T, have been ap-
proved by the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS). These conservation system alterna-
tives will be discussed later.
Assumptions
The implications of this study are strongly
influenced by the study assumptions. The
most important assumptions include:
>• Conservation compliance will not go
away.
>• Compliance can be met by some com-
bination of crop rotation and mechanical
practice that reduces soil erosion to T.
>• Most farmers will accept compliance
requirements to continue so they can par-
ticipate in various USDA programs.
>• Homogeneity of yield and erosion po-
tential represented by point estimates can be
assumed for soils within land capability
classes.
Study methods
We calculated returns to land and man-
agement for a matrix of four soil manage-
ment practices. Three conservation practices
used the most intensive (profitable) crop
rotations allowable with a soil erosion goal
of T. The conservation practices included
contouring; contouring with conservation
tillage, 30% residue after planting; and ter-
races with conservation tillage. The goal of
the fourth practice was to achieve maximum
profit without regard to erosion.
Table 1. Price scenarios used in analysis off economic impact of conservation compliance^
Commodity
Corn ($/bushel)
Soybean ($/bushel)
Wheat ($/bushel)
Alfalfa/
grass hay ($/ton)
Red clover
Grass hay ($/ton)
Pasture
($/animal unit month)
Low Price
Scenario
1.90
4.75
2.20
60.00
50.00
6.00
Medium Price
Scenario
2.35
5.90
2.70
65.00
55.00
7.00
High Price
Scenario
3.00
7.50
3.45
70.00
60.00
8.00
"Given a 10-year planning horizon, no government price support programs were assumed, i-ience,
three levels of prices were used for the reader to select the most appropriate in his/her judgment.
-------
Three price scenarios (Table 1) were cho-
sen not only to represent low, medium, and
high commodity price expectations but to
keep commodity prices in a realistic, histori-
cal relationship (ratio to corn as 1.00; wheat,
1.15; soybeans, 2.5). Obviously, other com-
binations of prices, conservation practices,
and crop rotations could be used. However,
we believe these choices were sufficiently
reasonable so that the data generated from
this analysis allows insights to be obtained
into the likely impact of conservation com-
pliance.
The common denominator for crop yield
data and universal soil loss equation (USLE)
factors is the soil mapping unit. This unit
represents a portion of the landscape that has
similar characteristics and qualities and
whose limits are fixed by precise definitions
(4). Soil surveys contain maps of landscapes
portioned into soil mapping units. The sur-
veys also include information on manage-
ment practices and estimated yields related
to the individual mapping units. For this
study, we used the modern soil surveys for
Clay and Ray Counties, located in west cen-
tral Missouri, as the source for crop yield
and soil erosion factor data. The soil map-
ping units in these surveys were considered
representative of a variety of natural re-
source conditions in northern Missouri.
The crop yields, soil erosion factors, and
map unit acres were recorded for land cap-
ability classes He, Hie, IVe and Vie (Table
2). Forage yields were estimated by Univer-
sity of Missouri extension personnel. Corn,
soybean, and wheat production is not rec-
ommended by SCS for land capability class-
es greater than IV; therefore, no yield data
are reported. In practice, these crops are
produced on some class VI and class VH
soils; however, yield data were not available
for development of budgets.
The SCS land capability classification sys-
tem groups soils according to their poten-
tials and limitations for sustained produc-
tion of the common cultivated crops (4).
This classification system is not the best for
aggregating soils by yield potential. For ex-
ample, note the yield similarities for soil
mapping units in class n and class El (Table
2). However, there is a good relationship be-
tween slope class and capability class, in
that, as the slope of the soil mapping units
increases, the soils are placed in higher
numbered capability classes. In general,
class II soils are found on 2-5% (B) slopes,
class IE soils on 5-9% (C) slopes, and class
IV soils on 9-14% (D) slopes.
We found that row-crop and wheat yields
increased by about 10% over a 10-year pe-
riod based on Missouri crop yield data (1).
Therefore, we adjusted crop yields (Table 2)
by 1% per year or a 10-year planning hori-
Table 2. Yield and soil loss data from soil surveys for Clay and Ray Counties, Missouri.
Soil Loss Factors
Soil
Mapping Unit
Adjusted Yield"
Corn Soybeans Wheat
Erosion Slope
Tolerance Soil Length and
(T) Erodibiiity Steepness^
(t/acre) (K)
(LS)
Acres
Clay and
Ray Counties
Acres Percent
— bushels/acre —
Land capability class He
Sibley 1B 127
Sharpsburg 6B 112
Sampsel 13B 95
Lagonda 24B 99
Ladoga 26B 101
Grundy 56B 108
Weighted average^ 109
Land capability class Hie
Sibley 1C 119
Higginsville 2C 119
Macksburg 5C 118
Sharpsburg 6C2 99
Sharpsburg 6D2 90
Greentown 11C2 85
Sampsel 13C 87
Lagonda 25C2 84
Ladoga 26C2 88
Ladoga 26D2 77
Armster 41 C2 64
Knox 54C2 98
Grundy 57C2 88
Weighted averaget 89
Land capability class IVe
Snead 9D 61
Greentown 11Ce —
Ladoga 27D3 68
Armster 41 D2 55
Amster 42C3 57
Knox 54E2 —
Knox 55D3 72
Weighted average:): 63
Land capability class Vie
Snead 9E —
Greentown 11D3 —
Lagonda 25d2 —
Amster 42E3 —
Knox 54F —
Weighted average^
50
47
36
37
39
42
44
43
45
43
44
33
31
33
31
33
29
28
36
33
35
23
—
25
24
20
—
26
24
—
—
—
—
53
50
39
42
43
44
47
44
50
47
46
37
34
33
37
36
31
31
37
37
39
28
29
28
28
24
—
29
27
,
—
—
—
5
5
3
3
5
3
4.4
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
3
4.2
3
2
5
5
4
5
6
4.5
3
2
3
4
5
3.4
.28
.32
.37
.37
.32
.37
.33
.28
.37
.32
.32
.32
.37
.37
.37
.32
.32
.37
.32
.37
.35
.37
.37
.32
.37
.37
.32
.32
.35
.37
.37
.37
.37
.32
.36
.51
.83
.53
.53
.47
.54
.52
.81
1.30
1.10
1.17
2.30
1.17
.88
.99
.92
1.90
.93
1.01
1.01
1.11
2.10
1.20
1.95
2.20
.96
3.75
1.90
2.19
4.20
2.30
2.30
2.00
7.00
3.71
4,700
35,100
2,760
7,950
7,250
12,090
69,850
4,575
3,440
21,650
38,950
9,100
11,800
4,330
61 ,050
13,600
7,550
28,450
8,850
6,700
220,045
10,650
2,340
4,650
16,400
3,350
8,200
14,900
60,490
1,223
8,090
2,510
3,610
6,250
21,683
6.7
50.2
4.0
11.4
10.4
17.3
100.0
2.1
1.6
9.8
17.7
4.1
5.4
2.0
27.8
6.2
3.4
12.9
4.0
3.0
100.0
17.6
3.9
7.7
27.1
5.5
13.6
24.6
100.0
5.6
37.3
11.6
16.7
28.8
100.0
'Published soil survey yields were increased 10% to account for yield increases due to improved
varieties and new technology.
tEstimates from SCS tables developed for completion of CRP worksheets.
^Weighted by the mapping unit acres within each land capability class. Numbers in last two
columns are totals.
zon in anticipation of continued improve-
ment in varieties and crop production tech-
nologies. The soil mapping unit yields and
soil erosion factors were condensed into
acreage weighted values by land capability
class.
As a step in the analysis, we constructed
partial budgets to project future income and
expenses (Tables 3-8). These budgets were
modified after Blase (2). We used the Mis-
souri Farm Planning Handbook (6) as the
principal source for most crop production
costs. Fertilizer requirements were based on
a soil fertility maintenance program for pre-
dicted yield levels. Labor was assigned a
wage rate of $5.00 per hour.
The budgets were adjusted to make inputs
consistent for expected yields of soils ag-
gregated by land capability class. For ex-
ample, seed, fertilizer, machinery mainte-
nance, and other variable costs fall as yields
decrease. Likewise, variable costs are high-
er for alfalfa hay than for red clover/grass
hay. The generated costs illustrate a point
that many farmers overlook. Marginally
productive soils require relatively high com-
modity prices to generate a profit.
The costs and/or potential returns directly
attributable to conservation practices were
not included in the analysis. The conserva-
tion costs are highly site-specific and, in the
case of building and maintaining terraces,
can exceed the costs associated with crop
production.
After we developed the partial budgets,
we summarized the profit or loss for each
crop by land capability class for each of the
three price scenarios (Table 9).
January-February 1990 155
-------
Finally, returns to land and manage-
ment for the most profitable rotation permit-
ted by a soil erosion goal of T and without
soil conservation were calculated by land
capability class, price scenario, and man-
agement practice (Tbble 10). We used the
LISLE to estimate soil erosion for various
crops and conservation practices. This pro-
cess required several iterations to arrive at
the most profitable crop rotation by conser-
vation system and land capability class.
When the rotation returns were negative, we
assumed that the land would revert to the
least-cost use, low-input pasture.
As stated earlier, many combinations of
the above variables could have been used in
the analysis. Those chosen here are consid-
ered illustrative of the variety of conserva-
tion practice alternatives that can be used
to meet the conservation compliance pro-
vision.
Analysis and discussion
Returns to land and management. Given
the large number of budgets generated, our
discussion focuses initially on the low price
projection for the corn budget (Table 3).
Budgets were calculated for land capabili-
ty classes II, HI, and IV. On a price assump-
tion for corn of $1.90/bushel, we calculated
gross income by multiplying price times
yield. The total variable costs were sub-
tracted from the gross income and report-
ed as income over variable costs. In turn,
we subtracted machinery depreciation and
labor costs per hectare, leaving a balance
that represents the return to land and man-
agement.
The price of corn necessary to break even
over the 10-year planning horizon for the
low price scenario [(variable costs + ma-
chinery + labor)/yield] is $1.89, $2.13 and
$2.70/bushel, respectively, for class II, III
and IV land, respectively. These break-even
prices do not take into account that most
rolling-landscape fields contain soils of
varying yield potentials. Farmers general-
ly manage for yield expectations based on
the more productive soils within a field and,
therefore, do not adjust inputs downward
for less productive soils within a field.
Note that the low price scenario generates
negative returns for all crops on all classes
of land considered except corn on class II
land and soybeans on classes II and III land
(Table 3-4). This result is one reason why
the soybean hectarage has been so large in
Table 3. Corn, soybean, and wheat budgets by land capability class, low price scenario, northern Missouri.
Corn
Land Capability Class
Item
Yield (bushel/acre)
Price (S/bushal)
Gross Income
Varisble costs
Seed
Fertilizer
Chemicals
Machine hire
Machine maintenance
Haul/dry
Miscellaneous
Interest
Total
Income over variable cost
Labor (hours)
Machinery depreciation
plus labor
Return to land
He
109
1.90
207.00
17.75
43.99
19.00
5.00
32.00
16.50
7.01
8.10
149.35
63.75
3.4
57.00
0.75
Hie
89
1.90
169.10
16.00
36.66
19.00
5.00
30.00
13.35
6.30
7.28
133.59
35.51
3.1
55.75
-20.25
IVe
63
1.90
119.70
14.00
28.36
19.00
5.00
27.25
9.45
5.45
6.30
114.81
5.11
3.0
55.00
-50.11
Soybeans
Land Capability Class
He
44
4.75
209.00
12.00
18.07
21.00
—
30.50
4.40
5.25
6.06
97.28
111.72
3.2
56.00
55.72
Hie
35
4.75
166.25
12.00
13.41
21.00
—
32.00
3.50
4.90
5.66
92.47
73.78
3.1
55.50
18.28
IVe
24
4.75
114.00
12.00
12.01
21.00
—
28.00
2.40
4.72
5.45
85.58
28.42
3.0
55.00
-26.58
Land
He
47
2.20
103.40
12.00
23.28
—
4.00
21.50
4.70
3.27
3.78
72.53
30.87
1.6
48.00
-17.13
Capability Class
Hie
39
2.20
85.80
12.00
21.03
—
4.00
20.00
3.90
3.05
3.52
67.50
18.30
1.5
47.50
-29.20
IVe
27
2.20
59.40
12.00
15.86
—
4.00
18.00
2.70
2.63
3.04
58.23
1.17
1.4
47.00
-45.83
Tabla 4. Legume and grass hay and pasture budgets by land capability class, low price scenario, northern Missouri.
Legume and Grass Hay
Land Capability Class
Item
Yield (bushel or AUM'/acre)
Price (S/ton or AUM)
Gross Income
Variable costs
Establishment
Fertilizer, lime
Crop chemicals and
supplies
Machine maintenance
Miscellaneous
Interest
Tolal
Income over variable cost
Labor (hours)
Machinery depreciation
plus tabor
Return to land
He
3.6
60.00
216.80
29.00
34.75
10.00
47.00
3.00
6.81
130.56
85.44
10
90.00
-4.56
Ille
2.9
60.00
174.60
27.00
29.76
10.00
42.00
3.00
6.15
117.91
56.09
9.0
85.00
-28.91
IVe
2.2
50.00
110.80
11.00
19.92
7.00
32.00
3.00
4.01
76.93
33.07
6.0
70.00
-36.93
Vie
1.9
50.00
95.00
11.00
17.69
7.00
31.25
3.00
3.85
73.79
21.21
6.0
70.00
-48.79
Pasture
Land Capability Class
He
7.3
6.00
43.80
5.00
38.83
2.00
2.00
—
2.63
50.46
-6.66
1.5
7.50*
-14.16
Ille
6.4
6.00
38.40
5.00
34.70
2.00
2.00
—
2.40
46.10
-7.70
1.5
7.50*
-15.20
IVe
5.4
6.00
32.40
5.00
29.82
2.00
2.00
—
2.14
40.96
-8.56
1.5
7.50*
-16.06
fi
Vie
5.0
6.00
30.00
4.00
26.68
2.00
2.00
—
1.91
36.59
-6.59
1.5
7.50*
-14.09
All
Soil Types,
Minimum-Input
Fescue
3.0
6.00
18.00
4.00
6.00
1.00
2.00
—
.72
13.72
4.28
1.0
5.00*
-0.72
•Animal unit month.
tLegume Is alfalfa for classes II and III and red clover for IV and V
JLabor only.
156 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
Table 5. Corn, soybean, and wheat budgets by land capability class, medium price scenario, northern Missouri.
Item
Yield (bushels/acre)
Price ($/bushel)
Gross income
Variable costs
Seed
Fertilizer
Chemicals
Machine hire
Machine maintenance
Haul/dry
Miscellaneous
Interest
Total
Income over variable cost
Labor (hours)
Machinery depreciation
plus labor
Return to land
Land
lie
109
2.35
256.15
17.75
43.99
19.00
5.00
32.00
16.50
7.01
8.10
149.35
106.80
3.4
57.00
49.80
Corn
Capability
Hie
89
2.35
209.15
16.00
36.66
19.00
5.00
30.00
13.35
6.30
7.28
133.59
75.56
3.15
55.75
19.81
Class
IVe
63
2.35
148.05
14.00
28.36
19.00
5.00
27.25
9.45
5.45
6.30
114.81
33.24
3.0
55.00
-21.76
Land
lie
44
5.90
259.60
12.00
18.07
21.00
30.50
4.40
5.25
6.06
97.28
162.32
3.2
56.00
106.32
Soybeans
Capability
Hie
35
5.90
206.50
12.00
13.41
21.00
32.00
3.50
4.90
5.66
92.47
114.03
3.1
55.50
58.53
Class
IVe
24
5.90
141.60
12.00
12.01
21.00
28.00
2.40
4.72
5.45
85.58
56.02
3.0
55.00
1.02
Land
He
47
2.70
126.90
12.00
23.28
4.00
21.50
4.70
3.27
3.78
72.53
54.37
1.6
48.00
6.37
Wheat
Capability
Hie
39
2.70
105.30
12.00
21.03
4.00
20.00
3.90
3.05
352
67.50
37.80
1.5
47.50
9.70
Class
IVe
27
2.70
72.90
12.00
15.86
4.00
18.00
2.70
2.63
3 04
58.23
14.67
1.4
47.00
32.33
Table 6. Legume and grass hay and pasture budgets by land capability class, mediumprice scenario, northern Missouri.
Legume and Grass Hay
Item
• Yield (bushel or AUMVacre)
Price ($/ton or AUM)
Gross income
Variable costs
Establishment
Fertilizer, lime
Crop chemicals and
supplies
Machine maintenance
Miscellaneous
Interest
Total
Income over variable cost
Labor (hours)
Machinery depreciation
plus labor
Return to land
'Animal unit month.
fLegume is alfalfa for classes I
*Labor only.
Land Capability Class
lie
3.6
65.00
234.00
29.00
34.75
10.00
47.00
3.00
6.81
130.56
103.44
10
90.00
13.44
I and III and
Ille
2.9
65.00
188.50
27.00
29.76
10.00
42.00
3.00
6.15
117.91
70.59
9.0
85.00
-14.41
red clover
IVe
2.2
55.00
121.00
11.00
19.92
7.00
32.00
3.00
4.01
76.93
44.07
6.0
70.00
-25.93
for IV and
Vie
1.9
55.00
104.50
11.00
17.69
7.00
31.25
3.00
3.85
73.79
30.71
6.0
70.00
-39.29
V.
Pasture
Land Capability Class
He
7.3
7.00
51.10
5.00
38.83
2.00
2.00
2.63
50.46
.64
1.5
7.50*
-6.86
Ille
6.4
7.00
44.80
5.00
34.70
2.00
2.00
2.40
46.10
-1.30
1.5
7.50*
-8.80
IVe
5.4
7.00
37.80
5.00
29.82
2.00
2.00
2.14
40.96
-3.16
1.5
7.50*
-10.66
All
Pn/V Ti/n^c
Minimum-Incut
Vie
5.0
7.00
35.00
4.00
26.68
2.00
2.00
1 91
36.59
-1.59
1.5
7.50*
-9.09
Fescue
3.0
7.00
21.00
4.00
6.00
1.00
2.00
72
13.72
7.28
1.0
5.00*
2.28
northern Missouri. Unfortunately, soybeans
also add to the potential for excessive ero-
sion on these soils. If soybeans are removed
from the crop rotation for the purpose of
erosion control, no profitable alternatives
remain under the low price scenario.
Note the projected returns to land and
management for individual crops under all
three price projections (Table 9). As price
levels increase, the window of profitability
expands. Several crop alternatives become
viable on class II and III land for the
medium price projection. Land in classes
IV and VI can most profitably be used as
low-input pasture.
Finally, under the high price projection,
corn, soybeans, and wheat generate appre-
ciable returns to land and management, es-
pecially for land classes H and m. Again,
low-input pasture is a viable alternative for
even the least-productive land capability
classes.
Competitive advantage of soybean pro-
duction. The budgets show the competitive
advantage of soybeans over corn, wheat,
and forages for all selected price scenarios.
Most Missouri upland soils, with the excep-
tion of the deep loess adjacent to the Mis-
souri and Mississippi Rivers, have solum
conditions that restrict root growth. The re-
strictions include clay texture B horizons
("claypans"), low pH, and shallow depth
to bedrock. Coupled with Missouri's cli-
mate, which historically results in low rain-
fall during the hot months of July and Au-
gust, drought conditions have impacts on
many crops, most more severely than soy-
beans. One of the hypothesized consequen-
ces of conservation compliance is the reduc-
tion in the amount of soybeans in many rota-
tions, assuming the soil conservation prac-
tices used in this study. Nevertheless, a few
farmers can be expected to forego USDA
program benefits. The result will be a great-
er emphasis on soybean production and po-
tentially greater erosion.
Economics of compliance alternatives.
When conservation compliance takes effect
in 1990, crop planting decisions first must
take into account soil erosion control and
then profitability if producers want to re-
ceive USDA program benefits. To illustrate
the impact of the compliance constraint,
consider the relative profitability of rota-
tions by conservation practice and price
scenario (Table 10). Higher returns to land
and management, exclusive of the cost of
conservation practice, can be expected as
row-crop production intensifies. Likewise,
note that the returns decrease with a given
January-February 1990 157
-------
conservation practice as the land quality
shifts from class II to class VH. Also, the
cropping options that are both profitable and
acceptable for soil erosion goals diminish
quickly with increasing class number. For
example, class in land represents a condi-
tion where profitable land use teeters be-
tween low-input pasture and crop produc-
tion, depending on crop price. Clearly, the
profitable alternatives available for land
classes III and higher are quite limited as
a consequence of conservation compliance,
and the returns to land and management are
quite low.
Economics of alternative conservation
systems. Alternative conservation systems
allow soil erosion to exceed T for the pur-
pose of avoiding undue financial hardships
in conservation compliance planning. In
Missouri, alternative conservation systems
are acceptable for compliance planning if
erosion is kept at or below 11 t/ha/yr (5
tons/acre/year) or the amount of soil erosion
that would occur under a cropping practice
of continuous corn planted no-till, up-and-
down slope with 70% residue remaining im-
mediately after planting, whichever is high-
er (5). Depending on soil type, the allowable
soil erosion rates do not exceed 11 t/ha/yr
until a slope of 7-8% is reached. Although
the alternative systems allow more intensive
row-crop production on steeper slopes, com-
pared to planning for T, no crop is profitable
(Table 9). In essence, the alternative systems
allow for the selection of cropping practices
that "lose" less money. An exception might
be the deep loess soils immediately adjacent
to the Missouri and Mississippi rivers.
These might generate a small profit.
We did not consider no-till cropping as a
management practice in this study. No-till,
continuous soybeans planted on the contour
is an acceptable alternative cropping system
on class II; class III; and, with the addition
of a cover crop, class IV and class VI land.
Producers who learn how to produce crops
under no-till will find that conservation
compliance will not affect their crop rota-
tion decisions.
Policy implications
Several policy implications can be drawn
from this analysis. They are based on reduc-
ing soil erosion to T, or the alternative sys-
tems mentioned above, and for soil-climatic
conditions similar to northern Missouri.
Four deserve elaboration:
Table 7. Corn, soybean, and wheat budgets by land capability class, high price scenario, northern Missouri.
Soy/beans
Wheat
Land Capability Class
Item
Yield (bushels/acre)
Price (S/busheJ)
Gross income
Variable costs
Seed
Fertilizer
Chemicals
Machine hire
Machine maintenance
Haul/dry
Miscellaneous
Interest
Total
Income over variable costs
Labor (hours)
Machinery depreciation
plus labor
Return to land
lie
109
3.00
327.00
17.75
43.99
19.00
5.00
32.00
16.50
7.01
8.10
149.35
177.65
3.4
57.00
120.65
Ille
89
3.00
267.00
16.00
36.66
19.00
5.00
30.00
13.35
6.30
7.28
133.59
133.41
3.15
55.75
77.66
IVe
63
3.00
189.00
14.00
28.36
19.00
5.00
27.25
9.45
5.45
6.30
114.81
74.19
3.0
55.00
19.19
Land
He
44
7.50
330.00
12.00
18.07
21.00
30.50
4.40
5.25
6.06
97.28
232.72
3.2
56.00
176.72
Capability Class
Ille
35
7.50
262.00
12.00
13.41
21.00
32.00
3.50
4.90
5.66
92.47
169.53
3.1
55.50
114.03
IVe
24
7.50
180.00
12.00
12.01
21.00
28.00
2.40
4.72
5.45
85.58
94.42
3.0
55.00
39.42
Land Capability Class
lie
47
3.45
162.15
12.00
23.28
4.00
21.50
4.70
3.27
3.78
72.53
89.62
1.6
48.00
41.62
Ille
39
3.45
134.55
12.00
21.03
4.00
20.00
3.90
3.05
3.52
67.50
67.05
1.5
47.50
19.55
IVe
27
3.45
93.15
12.00
15.86
4.00
18.00
2.70
2.63
3.04
58.23
34.92
1.4
47.00
-12.08
Table 8. Legume and grass hay and pasture budgets by land capability class, high price scenario, northern Missouri.
Legume and Grass Hay
Land Capability Class
Item
Yield (bushels or AUMVacre)
Price (S/ton or AUMJt
Gross income
Variable costs
Establishment
Fertilizer, lime
Crop chemicals and
supplies
Machine maintenance
Miscellaneous
Interest
Total
Income over variable cost
Labor (hours)
Machinery depreciation
plus labor
Return to land
He
3.6
70.00
252.00
29.00
34.75
10.00
47.00
3.00
6.81
130.56
121.44
10
90.00
31.44
Ille
2.9
70.00
203.50
27.00
29.76
10.00
42.00
3.00
6.15
117.91
8.509
9.0
85.00
.09
IVe
2.2
60.00
132.00
11.00
19.92
7.00
32.00
3.00
4.01
76.93
85.09
6.0
70.00
-14.93
Vie
1.9
60.00
114.00
11.00
17.69
7.00
31.25
3.00
3.85
73.79
40.21
6.0
70.00
-29.79
Pasture
Land Capability Class
He
7.3
8.00
58.40
5.00
38.83
2.00
2.00
2.63
50.46
7.94
1.5
7.50*
.44
Ille
6.4
8.00
51.20
5.00
34.70
2.00
2.00
2.40
46.10
5.10
1.5
7.50*
-2.40
IVe
5.4
8.00
43.20
5.00
29.82
2.00
2.00
2.14
40.96
2.24
1.5
7.50*
-5.26
A/
We
5.0
8.00
40.00
4.00
26.68
2.00
2.00
1.91
36.59
3.41
1.5
7.50*
-4.09
Soil Types,
Unimum-lnput
Fescue
3.0
8.00
24.00
4.00
6.00
1.00
2.00
.72
13.72
10.28
1.0
5.00*
5.28
"Animal unit month.
•fLegurna is alfalfa for classes II and III and red clover for IV and V.
*Labor only.
158 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
-------
Kirst, the impact will be lower economic
returns to land and management and, subse-
quently, to the value of the land itself. This
will be especially critical on erodible land
in capability classes HI and higher. This
conclusion is not to say that conservation
compliance should "go away." However, it
is naive and cruel to work with farmers and
Table 9. Projected returns to land and management by land capability class for three price
scenarios in northern Missouri.
Crop
Low price scenario
Corn
Soybeans
Wheat
Legume/grass
Improved pasture
Low-input pasture
Medium price scenario
Corn
Soybeans
Wheat
Legume/grass
Improved pasture
Low-input pasture
High price scenario
Corn
Soybeans
Wheat
Legume/grass
Improved pasture
Low-input pasture
Assumed
Price
$1 .90/bushel
$4.75/busheI
$2.20/bushel
60/50*/ton
$6.00/AUM
$6.00/AUM
$2.35/bushel
$5.90/bushel
$2.70/bushel
65/55*/ton
$7.00/AUM
$7.00/AUM
$3.00/bushel
$7.50/bushel
$3.45/bushel
70/60*/ton
$8.00/AUM
$8.00/AUM
Returns by Land Capability Class
lie
0.75
55.72
-17.13
-4.56f
-14.16
-0.72
49.80
106.32
6.37
13.44f
-6.86
2.28
120.65
176.72
41.62
31.44f
0.44
5.28
Ille
T
v>
-20.25
18.78
-29.20
- 28.91 f
-15.20
-0.72
19.81
58.53
-9.70
-14.41f
-8.80
2.28
77.66
114.03
19.55
.09f
-2.40
5.28
IVe
-50.11
-26.58
-45.83
-36.93*
-16.06
-0.72
-21.76
1.02
-32.33
-25.934:
-10.66
2.28
19.19
39.42
-12.08
-14.93+
-5.26
5.28
Vie
-48.79*
-14.09
-0.72
-39.29*
-9.09
2.28
-29.79*
-4.09
5.28
'Higher figure is alfalfa/grass hay; lower, red clover/grass hay.
tLegume is alfalfa.
*Legume is red clover.
Table 10. Return to land and management for the most profitable rotation permitting tolerable
soil loss (T) by land capability class and price scenario for each of four management prac-
tmoc nn rtrtH-kiAvn Hfliccmivi onllo
tices on northern Missouri soils.
Return by Land Capability Class
Item
lie
Ille
IVe
Vie
Farming without
Rotation
Price scenario
Low
Medium
High
regard to soil erosion
Continous
soybean
55.72
106.32
176.72
Continuous
soybean
18.28
58.53
114.03
Continuous
soybean
-0.72*
1.02
39.42
Continuous
soybean
-0.72*
2.28*
5.28*
Farming on contour
Rotation
Price scenario
Low
Medium
High
Corn, soybeans,
wheat
13.11
54.16
113.00
Corn, soybeans
wheat, 2 years
meadow
-0.72*
14.64
44.36
Soybeans,
wheat, 3 years
meadow
-0.72*
2.28*
8.64
Continuous
meadow
-0.72*
2.28*
5.28*
Contour plus conservation tillage
Rotation
Low
Medium
High
Corn, soybeans
28.24
78.06
148.69
Corn, Corn,
soybeans, wheat,
meadow
-0.72*
18.15
67.84
Soybeans,
wheat, 2 years
meadow
-0.72*
2.28*
9.48
Continuous
meadow
-0.72*
2.28*
5.28*
Conservation tillage plus terraces
Rotation
Price scenario
Low
Medium
High
Continuous
soybeans
55.72
106.32
176.72
Corn, corn,
soybeans
-0.72*
32.72
89.78
Soybeans,
wheat, meadow
-0.72*
2.28*
10.87
Continuous
meadow
-0.75*
2.28*
5.28*
landowners on soil conservation and ignore
the economic consequences or to assume
that conservation compliance will disappear
in the near future.
Second, the analysis suggests that class
IV, class VI, and possibly class El land will
be relegated for economic reasons to low-
input (scrub oak and fescue) pasture in the
future. This land is the type presently en-
rolled in CRP for a maximum bid of $657
acre in Missouri. The CRP will have placed
an artificially high floor price under this
land if this return is capitalized into land val-
ues. Under these circumstances, land values
would be determined by such things as spec-
ulation and nonagricultural uses. Some land
would likely revert to the public domain due
to nonpayment of real estate taxes. Given the
length of the CRP and its low labor require-
ments, fanners are likely to have down-sized
their machinery complement so that most
of this return likely is attributed to land.
What will happen to the value of this land
at the end of the CRP?
Third, soybeans have tended to be the
dominant crop on erodible soils in northern
Missouri and are extremely important to the
Missouri agricultural economy. If these
erodible soils are to be kept in profitable
crop production other than grass and trees,
producers will have to use new cultural prac-
tices, such as no-till soybeans, and new
crops, including nontraditional crops.
Fourth, soil conservation programs have
economic implications on farm income that,
in turn, extend into rural economies. There
is no doubt that stewardship of the soil re-
source is deficient, especially on erodible
yet profitable land. If present agricultural
enterprises are neither consistently profitable
nor resource-sustainable, then such alter-
natives as long-term easements need to be
considered as financial means for helping
farmers and landowners shift out of an un-
desirable land use.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Bay, D. M. 1985. Missouri agricultural statistics
by counties and districts 1970-1982. Mo. Crop and
Livestock Reporting Serv., Columbia.
2. Blase, Melvin G. 1988. The economic impact of
conservation compliance. In Proceedings, Water
Quality and Soil Conservation: Conflicts of Rights
and Issues. Spec. Rpt. 394. Agr. Exp. Sta., Univ.
Mo., Columbia, pp 72-81.
3. McCormack, D. E., K. K. Young, and L. W.
Kimnberlin. 1982. Current criteria for determin-
ing soil loss tolerance. In Determinants of Soil
Loss Tolerance. Spec Pub. 45. Am. Soc. Agron.,
Madison, Wise. pp. 95-111.
4. Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Land-capability
classification. Agr. handbk. No. 210. U.S. Dept.
Agr., Washington, D.C.
5. Soil Conservation Service. 1989. Guidesheet for
alternative conservation systems for cropland.
Mo. Field. Off. Tech. Guide. Columbia.
6. University of Missouri. Missouri farm planning
handbook. Man. 75. Rev. 2/86. Coll. Agr., Ext.
Div., Columbia. Q
January-February 1990 159
-------
Reclaiming Mine Soils and Overburden
•IB ii Hi m IP i * • !•• » i i i i i iiiii i i
i in the Western United States
Analytic Parameters and Procedures
1 11 I I 'Ml i I i I I (I I In i III ill llilllHI 1 I HI in llilijlilllil II _ in IIill _ 1 i , ..
Reclaiming Mine Soils and Overburden in the Western United States: Analytic
Parameters and Procedures is a thorough and impartial review of the available scientific
1 ^owledge on analytic factors commonly usedto cTiaracTerizemine soils and overburden.
lli'ilillflM ill Because, of concern for the reclamation of surface-mined land in the West, soil and over-
fourdin Baseline surveys' have become'standard requiremenls 67"mlh"e'permit applications.
This his resultedin substantial data collection. But the data collected have been of limited
Use in planning because of an inability to interpret those data;
Reclamation scientists will find this book a valuable reference for designing and inter-
preting soil and overburden sampling programs.
I!! "III™,! Researpfj sclenflslswin uselhis guideline to find immediate answers to specific problems.
The book also outlines areas requiring further research.
For regulatory agencies, the volume supplies a slrdhg," vital reference in making envi-
ronmental impact assessments. Also offered are data, insights, understanding, and support
for environmental decision-making and some precedent for judging the likelihood for suc-
cess in reclamation strategies.
R. Dean Williams and Gerald E. Schuman, Editors
344 pages, hardbound, $85.00; $82.50 for SWCS members
ISBN 0-935734-14-7
MasterCard and VISA accepted
w CONSERVATION
SOCIETY
•I"1 ••ill1 I'
7515 N.E. Ankeny Road
Ankeny, Iowa 50021-9764
(515) 289-2331
ii ff irfill'i wnm#m '-a a m
Soil Erosion Research Methods provides scientists
throughout the world with a chance to observe, study,
and apply standardized research methods so that
possibly for the first time in history soil erosion data
from areas spanning the globe can be analyzed and
compared with some degree of accuracy.
The belief that some data are better than no data
has lead at times to erroneous interpretations of re-
search and costly mistakes in designing expensive,
ineffective erosion control measures. Soil Erosion
Research Methods is an important step toward the
realization of standardized erosion research meth-
odologies.
Written by members of Subcommission C, Soil
Conservation and Environment, of the International
Society of Soil Science and edited by Rattan Lai, an
associate professor of soil science at Ohio State
University, Soil Erosion Research Methods represents
the collective expertise of some of the world's fore-
most researchers in soil and water management. It
is what might be termed the "bible" of how to con-
duct soil erosion research at any location around the
globe.
244 pages. $16.00; $14.00 to SWCS or ISSS members.
ISBN 0-935734-18-X.
All orders postpaid via surface mail; airmail extra.
VISA and MasterCard accepted.
To order, write or call:
Soil and Water Conservation Society
7515 Northeast Ankeny Road
Ankeny, Iowa 50021-9764
(515) 289-2331
SOILE
AND WATER
CONSERVATION
SOCIETY
-------
DO CONTRACTORS KNOW SOMETHING
THAT SURVEYORS DON9
-35B
SURVEYORS USE... CONTRACTORS USE
Data Collectors Notepads
EDM's Measuring Tapes
Theodolites Transits
Automatic Levels Laserplane Leveling Systems
AND an Instrument Man
Thirty years ago surveyors began using automatic levels. Contractors
were mystified by the short scoped level that only had three leveling
screws. Today, automatic levels are the tool of choice for most surveyors,
but contractors are stepping forward by choosing Laserplane Leveling
Systems.
MOST SURVEYORS MAY NOT UNDERSTAND
THE REAL BENEFITS OFTHE
LASERPLANE LEVELING SYSTEM
ACCURACY 10 arc seconds. A study by a major
University concluded the accuracy to be ± 1.7mm per
kilometer for double run leveling.
RANGE Laserplane 350 and Laserplane 650 cover 24
and 80 acres respectively from one set-up! What size is
your average topo?
PRODUCTIVITY Two or more men on the job already.
Use multiple rod mounted Level-Eye receivers and finish
leveling in half the time.
LABOR SAVINGS Why send a field crew when one
person can handle re-staking?
SPECIAL APPLICATIONS Works in the dark or over
line-of-sight obstacles.
SIMPLE Sets up just like a level but eliminates the
need for focusing crosshairs, aiming and focusing a
scope, interpreting a tiny mark on a rod 50' to 500' away
or communicating with hand signals or walkie-talkies.
SAFE Uses similar technology as found in infarred
EDM's, Total Stations and compact disc players.
AFFORDABLE If you continue using an automatic
level with key personnel standing behind it, you will pay
for a Laserplane Leveling System whether you get one
or not!
LASERPLANE ...Besi For All Leveling
Applications From Single Grade Shots
To Slopes On Grade
To obtain a reprint of "Rotating Beam Laser Leveling
Systems Application For Surveyors" or to arrange a no
obligation demonstration, contact us or your local Authorized
Spectra-Physics Dealer.
Available Under Federal Supply Schedule
No. GSOOF-06978
Spectra-Physics
Construction & Agricultural Lasers
5475 Kellenburger Road
Dayton, OH 45424-1099
Telephone: 513-233-8921
1-800-538-7800 Ext. 100
FAX: 513-233-9004
-------
Hickenbottom Surface Inlets
"Look for the Bright Orange Inlet, Hickenbottorn's Trademark®"
Inlets for Ponds and Sediment Traps
Catchbasin Inlets for Road Culverts
HlcKanboltonVs heavy duty plastic
drain inlots have many uses and
advantages:
• Parallel Twace Outlets: AS a bright
orange, (roe standing Inlet it is
durable, easy to see and easily
maintained,
• LoW'jpot Surface Inlets: The need
for gravel fill over tile Is eliminated;
silt slays on the surface and does
not seal up as with gravel Inlets.
• Catch Basins: A silt trap is not
needed; first the water ponds to
deposit silt, then runs into the inlet.
Tho inlet area is much greater than
the restricted outlet. This eliminates
suction and trash plug-ups.
• Infiltration Inlet Risen A special
inner riser can ba inserted to main-
tain ponding at a certain level to
Improve water infiltration In semi-
arid regions.
• Larst or Small: e, 8, and 10 Inch diameter
inlets with 11nch holes or 1 inch wide
slots suit all Inlet requirements. A plastic
ofilico plate can quickly be cut to size to
provide the required inlet capacity.
• Snap Togallutr: All parts, Tees, Offsets, Risers
and Inlots snap together for installation ease.
Risers and Inlets can be cut off to suitable lengths.
• Light Weight and Simple: No need to hoist in
concrete catch basins and no need to weld
aluminum or steel pipe inlets.
• Approved: Hickenbottom inlets are government
approved.
• Availability: Authorized distributors in the US and
Canada have stocks handy for fast delivery to contractors.
Grassed- Waterway Intakes
Available through most US drainage companies
HICKENBOTTOM INC.
RR 12
Fairfield, Iowa 52556
(515) 472-4786, 472-5710, 472-2009 or
1-800-443-7879 (outside Iowa), 1-800-247-1723 (In Iowa)
Now available In Canada at:
Maaskant Bros, and Prod.
RR #2, Clinton, Ontario NOM 1LO
Hugo Maaskant (519) 524-6828
John Maaskant (519) 524-9081
------- |