Here it is:
The controversy over Washington State University's Center
for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources smolders on
with the latest batch of critical comments reported in the
October 27 Capitol Press. The most recent target is Dave
Bezdicek, the outgoing Director, but shutting down or crippling
the Center itself seems to be the real goal behind Dave
Roseberry's criticism. The Center appears now to be in limbo,
and Mr. Roseberry has the last word in the article, speaking in
the past tense: "it [the Center] was unlikely to make progress
in solving problems."
The fact is, there has been no serious criticism of the
Center's work from anyone except wheat farmers, primarily
Mr. Roseberry, president of the Washington Association of
Wheat Growers. The Center's projects have focused on
improving rural-urban understanding, reducing erosion in rill-
irrigated fields, composting solid waste and coal ash from the
Pullman campus of WSU, and finding ways to define soil
quality that make more sense for long-term productivity.
What is there to complain about in this partial list? Add the
fact that most of the Center's activities have been funded by
off-campus sources through nearly $1.5 million worth of
proposals written or sponsored by the Center over the last 3
years, and it's hard not to wonder if there's something else
behind the criticism.
At the least, the complaints of Mr. Roseberry and others
indicate a lack of understanding of where sustainable
agriculture started and where it's headed, and of what has been
happening in other parts of the country.
It's possible to trace the beginning of one branch of the
sustainable agriculture movement in the United States to the
Midwest and the farm crisis of the late 1970's and early
1980's. Many farmers found themselves unable to afford
inputs, including land, chemicals, and interest payments, whose
cost was out of their control. The tragedy of so many farmers
going out of business, causing such damage to rural
communities, was so painful that farm advocacy groups--many
led by farmers themselves--began to look for ways to avoid
repeating the experience. Other farmers, concerned over the
discovery of fertilizer-comtaminated ground water, searched
for more efficient ways to use fertilizers, saving money and the
environment in the process. In the Midwest, and in California
and other states, the Land Grant universities have been forced
to follow such progressive farmers into the study of more
sustainable agriculture, not the other way around. In other
words, sustainable agriculture started with farmers worried
about the future, and is inherently pro-agriculture. In fact, the
most important, least controversial, yet least discussed goal of
sustainable agriculture is keeping family farmers on the farm.
No one truly interested in sustainable agriculture wants to see
anyone go out of business.
With this history in mind, it's much easier to see why
advocates of sustainable agriculture hold certain attitudes
about some farm chemicals and other technologies. There's
suspicion of farm chemicals because they're expensive:
fertilizer and pesticides are the second and third most
expensive inputs on many farms. And there's reasonable
concern, even among farmers, over the health effects of some
of these same materials. In a recent survey of farm women,
anxiety over farm chemicals was one of the most frequently
mentioned worries.
Technology is sometimes questioned because technology can
be very expensive, impossible for even medium-sized farms to
use. For example, this past spring the Capitol Press reported on
efforts to develop an asparagus harvesting machine. My
parents make their living farming in the Columbia Basin, and
asparagus has been one of their crops for the last 15 years.
When I mentioned the article to my father he said two things:
first, he doubted it would be possible to build such a machine
that worked, and second, if one ever was built, he would *go out
of business* because he wouldn't be able to afford it. In
general, technologies that favor increasing the size of farms and
reducing the number of farmers are frowned upon by people
interested in sustainable agriculture. This only seems
reasonable, and it seems to me anyone who thinks otherwise
must be looking forward to seeing their neighbors move into
town so they can take over more land. On the other hand,
technologies, including better access to information, that make
better use of a farmer's management skills and reward smarter
farming instead of simply bigger farming, are welcome.
There's no question that, at some level, an organization such
as the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources
should work for the farmer; unfortunately, Mr. Roseberry seems
to think he's that farmer. Yet the Center was established to
serve the entire agricultural community, statewide. If Mr.
Roseberry's views are the only ones WSU has for guidance, the
Center will be remade, if it continues at all, according to his
intentions. Instead it's important that everyone interested in
Washington's agriculture should have input, and WSU should
actively seek it.
I'm interested in hearing what people, especially people in
Washington, think of this...
Steve Verhey
Crop & Soil Science
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164-6420