The Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems (CSAS) in the=20
Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources (IANR) at the=20
University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) is an interdisciplinary
center formed in 1991 for the purpose of bringing together people
and resources to promote an agriculture that is efficient,
competitive, profitable, environmentally and socially sustainable
for the indefinite future. Electronic versions of the CSAS
bimonthly newsletter are sent to SANET and PENPages
10-14 days before those on our mailing list
receive their hard copy. They are also available along with other
sustainable ag information on our new World Wide Web page:
http://ianrwww.unl.edu/ianr/csas
Note: The electronic version is not sent to individual e-mail
addresses. To be added to the "hard copy" newsletter mailing list
(not sent to overseas addresses), or for questions or comments,
contact the newsletter editor, Pam Murray, Coordinator, Center
for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, PO Box 830949, University
of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0949, 402-472-2056, fax -4104,
e-mail: csas001@unlvm.unl.edu.
* * *
CONTENTS:
ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF WHOLE-FARM
PRODUCTION SYSTEMS IN EASTERN NEBRASKA
SARE PRODUCER GRANTS DUE MAY 1
RR SOYBEANS: DELAYING THE INEVITABLE?
NEW SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SERVICE ON THE
INTERNET
INTEGRATED FARM UPDATE: WINDBREAKS INCREASE PEPPER YIELDS
SOUTHERN REGION MEETS TO DISCUSS SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
EDUCATION
STUDY ASSOCIATES NITRATE IN DRINKING WATER WITH GREATER CANCER RISK
RESOURCES
COMING EVENTS
* * *
ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF WHOLE-FARM PRODUCTION
SYSTEMS IN EASTERN NEBRASKA
FIRST in a four-part series: Classifying Producers/Production Systems
[With primary funding from an Agriculture in Concert with the Environment
(ACE) grant, a team of UNL researchers conducted one of six regional studies
that will be aggregated to assess the national impact of moving toward a
more sustainable agriculture. The goal of the Nebraska project was to study
existing whole-farm system groups along a continuum from "conventional" to
"alternative" and compare the economic, environmental, and sociological
performance/characteristics of each group. Team members of the 1993-1996
study were Glenn Helmers, Kevin Bernhardt, John Allen, Alice Jones, and
William Powers. For more information, contact Pam Murray in the CSAS=
office.]
Cluster Analysis
A classification method was needed to identify farm systems originating from
surveys for rigorous comparison research. The method used was cluster
analysis. The method proved to be successful with 59 crop production
practice variables being cluster analyzed into five groups. The groups
ranged from a virtually all irrigated monocrop corn system to one that is
near organic.
This classification method statistically and without a priori knowledge 1)
classifies farms into homogeneous subgroups based on similarity of their
production systems, 2) develops subgroups along a continuum from
"conventional" to "alternative," 3) conducts the classification such that
results would be suitable for statistical analysis, and 4) results in an
unbiased mathematical classification of the data. What follows are the
results of the cluster subgroups:
Irrigated-Monocroppers: This group has the highest feedgrain base, and are
highly dependent on chemical means of weed and insect control. They also
depend largely on synthetic sources of nitrogen fertility, especially
anhydrous ammonia, and virtually no nitrogen from organic sources. Ridge or
conventional tillage is the most common tillage system. This group also used
crop consultants and soil testing more than any other group, has one of the
higher education levels, and has the most conventional score on the
Alternative-Conventional Agricultural Paradigm (ACAP) scale.
Young-Business-Technocrats: This group is the youngest, and tends to be
more aggressive in employing new technologies for both business and
production aspects of their operations as evidenced, in part, by their much
larger use of computers and no-till tillage systems. Common rotations for
this group are corn-corn-soybeans on irrigated acres and corn-soybeans on
dryland. They monitor nitrogen application more than other groups and are
second for soil testing and crop scouting. They have the largest average
farm size, but own less percent of their farm compared to the other groups.
This group is also one of the more educated groups and tends to use off-farm
sources of information more than any other group.
Integrated: The integrated group employs a spectrum of practices. They use
synthetic fertilizers and chemical means of pest control, but they are also
among the highest users of natural nitrogen sources and organic means of
pest control. Whereas the young-business-technocrats are early adopters of
mechanical type technologics, the integrated group is more likely to adopt
on-farm or method type technologies such as strip cropping, parasitic means
of pest control, and double, inter, or relay cropping. They generally employ
conventional tillage, but are much more experimental with alternative
cropping patterns and rotations. They receive almost half of their income
from livestock, and their paradigmatic view of the world tends to be more
toward the alternative point of view. Finally, they and the near organic
group are the only groups to have some affiliation with the Nebraska
Sustainable Agriculture Society.
Urban-Fringe (Traditional): The urban-fringe group is the hardest to label.
This group seldom was characterized as being the highest or lowest user of
any practice with the exception that their percent of income coming from the
farm was 15-20% lower than any of the other groups. They tended to be fairly
conventional with respect to nitrogen and chemical use, but were further
towards the alternative side of the ACAP scale than either the
irrigated-monocroppers or the young business technocrats. They also tend to
use alfalfa in their crop rotations, which is more in keeping with the
integrated and near-organic groups. Another interesting characteristic of
this group, and the source of their name, is that they tend to be located
around major metropolitan areas, which may explain the higher level of
household income coming from off the farm and smaller farm size.
Alternative-Conventional Agricultural Paradigm (ACAP) Scale
A statewide study of Nebraska agricultural producers was used to test
whether a relationship exists between producers' world view/paradigm and the
actual production systems they employ. Assessing the linkage for areas of
attitudinal commonality or divergence can contribute to a better
understanding of the nature and sources of conflict between conventional and
alternative agriculturalists.
The ACAP scale was developed by Curtis Beus and Riley Dunlap to determine
how adherents of the (two) camps see the agricultural world and, in the
process, shed light on the roots of agricultural policy debates. Their
purpose was to develop a tool for determining the degree of divergence
between alternative and conventional agriculturalists, for identifying the
elements of the debate over which there is the greatest (and least)
divergence, and for examining the degree to which each camp holds consistent
positions across these elements.
Study results indicate that, overall, a relationship does exist. Further,
conventional vs. alternative paradigmatic views generally correlate with the
appropriate conventional vs. alternative production system. Not
surprisingly, divergence of opinion was greatest with respect to how food
and fiber should be produced. For example, the question with the most
divergence between the conventional and alternative groups was that farmers
should use natural fertilizers and production methods versus using synthetic
fertilizers an pesticides.
Perhaps more interesting for policy development than where divergence
occurred is where there was commonality. Farm operators in today's social
climate are often stereotyped. Conventional producers are purported to be
anti-environment and anti-community while alternative producers are radicals
that advocate a complete restructuring of agriculture. However, results do
not support either view. In fact, no matter what camp they adhere to,
producers appear to share similar long-term goals for agriculture. All
producers scored conventionally with the views that farming should be
handled as a business with the aim of earning an above average standard of
living, that U.S. agriculture is the most successful in the world, and that
modern agriculture is a minor cause of ecological problems. All groups
scored on the alternative paradigm side of the scale with respect to
farmland being farmed so as to protect the long-term productive capacity of
the land even if this means lower profits, that farm traditions and culture
are essential for good farming, and that healthy rural communities are
essential for modern agriculture's future success.
Editor's Note: The second article in this series will address the economic
aspects of the study.
SARE PRODUCER GRANTS DUE MAY 1
Farmers and ranchers interested in exploring new possibilities for higher
profits, environmental stewardship, or community development have the
opportunity to do so with funds for research and education projects from
the USDA's North Central Region (NCR) Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education (SARE) Producer Grant Program.
Over 160 producer grants have been awarded in the NCR since the inception
of this competitive grant program five years ago. This year, $200,000 is
available =97 up to $5,000 to individual producers investigating any
sustainable practice or concept and up to $10,000 to groups of producers
proposing creative marketing projects.
Producers must reside in the 12-state region: IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO,
NE, ND, OH, SD, WI. Applications are due May 1, 1997. Funds will be
available in mid-fall for the 1998 crop production season. Call the North
Central Region Office 402-274-7081, or e-mail sare001@unlvm.unl.edu for an
application.
RR SOYBEANS: DELAYING THE INEVITABLE?
Margaret Mellon, editor of the newsletter The Gene Exchange, attended an
October 1996 conference on biotechnology. Monsanto's new product, Roundup
Ready (RR) soybeans, dominated discussions. The following is excerpted from
her column.
* * *
The scientists in the room agreed that the RR soybeans will work to control
weeds and perhaps lower costs in conventional systems =97 for the short=
term.
But they also pointed out that sooner or later weeds will begin to develop
resistance to Roundup and more applications of the herbicide will be
required. Increasing use of Roundup, of course, will likely increase the
rate of herbicide resistance development and pretty soon, farmers will again
have lots of weeds and even fewer weed control options.
At that point, according to the scientists, farmers will have to turn to
crop rotation, innovative cultivation techniques, intercropping, and other
methods for weed control. These methods are harder to adopt than a new
variety of soybean, but once adopted, work reliably and safely over the long
term.