The Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems (CSAS) in the
Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources (IANR) at the
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, PENPages, and the
internal IANRNEWS 10-14 days before those on our mailing list
receive their hard copy. They are also available along with
other sustainable ag information on the gopher: IANRVM.UNL.EDU.
To be added to the "hard copy" newsletter mailing list, or for
questions or comments, contact the newsletter editor, Pam Murray,
Administrative Coordinator, Center for Sustainable Agricultural
Systems, 221 Keim Hall, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln,
NE 68583-0949, 402-472-2056, e-mail CSAS001@UNLVM.UNL.EDU.
* * *
Contents:
CSAS 1991-1993 PROGRESS REPORT
SUSTAINABLE AG INFO ON IANR GOPHER
SUSTAINABLE AG CONSORTIUM GETS UNDERWAY
CURRICULAR MATERIALS FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
ATTENTION IANR RESEARCHERS
IN THE SEMINAR SPOTLIGHT
SUSTAINABLE AG HOTLINE
1994 NATIONAL FORUM FOR AGRICULTURE
DELANEY CLAUSE AND NEGLIGIBLE RISK
DID YOU KNOW ...
RESOURCES
COMING EVENTS
CSAS 1991-1993 PROGRESS REPORT
A report highlighting the activities of the first three years of
the UNL Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems is available
in print or electronically (see below). Contact our office for
the printed version.
SUSTAINABLE AG INFO ON IANR GOPHER
The new gopher developed at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
(UNL), Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources (IANR) now
has a section on sustainable agriculture that contains: material
published by the UNL Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems,
including newsletters, 1991-1993 Progress Report, and list of
publications for purchase; curricular materials (see related
article); IANR research and education projects in sustainable ag
with contact names; list of books from "Our Sustainable Future"
series, University of Nebraska Press; and a link to the national
electronic Sustainable Agriculture Directory of Expertise. We
will add materials as they become available. UNL faculty wishing
to add to this section should contact Pam Murray in the CSAS
office. Thanks to Al Stark for setting this up.
The path for this gopher is:
IANRVM.UNL.EDU
IANR Information
Sustainable Agriculture
SUSTAINABLE AG CONSORTIUM GETS UNDERWAY
A national Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education has been launched with two organizing meetings last
fall, several projects in the works, and the first issue of a
Consortium newsletter. The Consortium is for all who share a
commitment to the goals of sustainable agriculture and a concern
about making our public research, extension, and education system
more conducive to achieving those goals. Participants include
scientists, farmers, extension agents, advocates, educators and
agency personnel. The Consortium will be member-driven,
functioning as an umbrella to enable new collaborations and a
stronger community of interest.
Consortium task forces are forming and planning efforts to
identify research needs and gaps, improve educational systems for
sustainable agriculture, develop criteria to evaluate outcomes of
research and extension programs, influence research funding, and
reform institutional policies. Other activities will include
seeking increased representation of sustainable agriculture
expertise (including scientists, farmers and others) on advisory
committees, review panels and priority-setting bodies that help
determine the relevance of research to sustainable agriculture.
If you are interested in the Consortium and would like to receive
its first newsletter, contact Gabriel Hegyes
(ghegyes@nalusda.gov) for an electronic copy, or for a hard copy
send your full address to Elizabeth Bird at the Center for Rural
Affairs, PO Box 406, Walthill, NE 68067, 402-846-5428.
CURRICULAR MATERIALS FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
A collection of newly developed and existing curricular materials
on sustainable agriculture is contained in a two-volume report
titled, "Extension and Education Materials for Sustainable
Agriculture," published in January 1994. The materials, geared for
higher education, were developed/assembled with the support of a
USDA LISA/SARE grant, which funded two regional workshops and the
publication and distribution of the report. The editors of the
report, Drs. James King and Charles Francis, describe it as a set
of eclectic materials for classroom teachers, extension educators
and producers. Single copies of the report are available from our
office at no charge while grant funds last. Much of the material
is available electronically (see Gopher article).
ATTENTION IANR RESEARCHERS
If you are conducting research in an area that is related to
sustainable agriculture (resource-efficient farming), please
contact Chuck Francis or Pam Murray about the possibility of an
article in this newsletter describing your project or research
results. The newsletter (in printed and electronic form) is read
by many researchers around the U.S. and the world.
IN THE SEMINAR SPOTLIGHT
Matt Liebman, Agricultural Ecologist and Program Coordinator of the
Sustainable Agriculture Program at the University of Maine, Feb.
17.
* * *
What can farmers do when the topsoil has virtually disappeared?
Cover crops and rotations are part of the solution. Rapid thawing
of large amounts of snow over a frozen soil surface can cause
massive runoff and soil erosion in the spring. This can reach
levels of 30 to 50 tons of soil per acre, and cause gulleys up to
one meter deep in the rocky soils of the Northeast. There is an
immediate problem of getting the field into shape for planting, and
a long-term loss of the productive soil on which crops depend. Use
of cover crops of mixed legumes and small grains, biocontrol
agents, and compost or manure applications have been used to reduce
production costs as well as eliminate up to half the applications
of chemical pesticides in the potato research project Liebman
directs.
Farmers have played a key role in the evaluation of innovative new
systems. Many of the evaluation trials are located on farmer
fields, and there is keen interest from the industry in results
from the research. The University of Maine Sustainable Agriculture
Program has faculty from six departments and twenty-five graduate
students involved in some phase of the research. Liebman described
their comparisons of crop productivity, soil properties, and pest
dynamics in three management systems: conventional, reduced input,
and biological.
A videotape of Liebman's seminar is available in the CSAS office.
Dr. Liebman's position was one of the first in the U.S. to carry
the title "Sustainable Agriculture."
Submitted by Charles Francis
V. Kerry Smith, University Distinguished Professor of Economics at
North Carolina State University and University Fellow at Resources
for the Future, March 16.
* * *
Dramatic changes have recently occurred in how our society holds
parties liable for damages they do to natural re-sources. As of
today, parties responsible for damage are held liable for: (a)
restoration of the injured resources to their original condition;
(b) compensation of others for the full economic value of loss in
services (including use and non-use values); and (c) all the costs
to assess the damage. The second of these principles is the most
revolutionary, and it has catapulted some of the methods and
techniques of economics squarely into the spotlight of damage
assessment proceedings. These principles have only in part been
established by such legislative landmarks as CERCLA (the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980), SARA (the Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization
Act of 1986), and OPA (the Oil Pollution Act of 1990). Equally
important have been a series of court decisions and administrative
rules that are continuing to arise out of this legislation. These
rulings have required that an economic value be assigned to such
services as a day of salmon fishing in a river and a housing
environment without a PCB-contaminated bay 500 yards away. How is
the economic value of a day of salmon fishing or a larger flock of
sandhills cranes in the flyway, to be determined? It's now an
important question, because someone is actually going to have to
write a check for that amount if they are held liable. Economic
theory and practice provides two methods for measuring the value of
such non-priced commodities. The revealed preference approach
indirectly infers how much a person values salmon fishing by
concluding that it must be at least as much as the travel costs
incurred to be able to fish. The contingent valuation approach
directly asks persons what they would be willing to pay. Both
methods have weaknesses, but since there are at present no better
approaches, regulatory agencies are in the process of accepting
them for purposes of determining compensation.
In a second talk, Prof. Smith focused on the more aggregate issue
of placing a value on the entire environmental complex. The U. S.
Department of Commerce is committed to a modification of the
national income accounts to include the value of changes in the
quality of environmental resources. Changes in the "greened" Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) measure is intended to more accurately
reflect changes in the quality of life. Experiments conducted by
Prof. Smith and his colleagues suggest that existing methods used
in economic aggregation are just not capable of providing plausible
measures of the total value people place on environmental
resources. The fact that the greened GDP accounts are to be
implemented yet this century adds urgency to the research task of
developing and refining some fundamentally new approaches to eco-
nomic measurement.
Submitted by Richard Perrin
SUSTAINABLE AG HOTLINE
The Center for Rural Affairs in Walthill, Nebraska, has established
a hotline to help producers find out more about what their options
are under USDA programs on sustainable agriculture, wetlands and
conservation reserve, and water quality. Farmers can also find out
more about the proposed changes for 1994 in the USDA's Integrated
Farm Management Program, which reportedly will allow farmers to
plant soil-saving crop rotations while protecting their existing
321 base acreage and still receive deficiency payments on base
acreage. The hotline number is 402-491-3620. For more information
contact the Center for Rural Affairs, PO Box 406, Walthill, NE
68067, 402-846-5428.
1994 NATIONAL FORUM FOR AGRICULTURE
Who will control the U.S. food and agricultural system? This
question was the focus of the fourth National Forum for
Agriculture, held in Des Moines, Iowa, February 28-March 1, 1994.
Co-sponsored by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development
(CARD) at Iowa State University and the Food and Agriculture Com-
mittee of the Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce, the forum
attracted over 500 participants. Those attending represented many
different sectors of agriculture and the food system.
An excellent group of speakers, most of which have national
reputations, made presentations at the forum.
Stanley R. Johnson, CARD director, opened the forum by providing an
overview of changes occurring in agriculture and the food system.
He said those in production agriculture need to understand the
policy process and how the cultural make-up (chemistry) is changing
within and among key groups. He identified eight groups or inter-
ests, all of whom want to influence policy: consumers, agribusi-
nesses, environmentalists, producers, financial interests, rural
development interests, science and technology interests, and
international interests. The best chance for success will be when
several groups or interests unite behind a common goal.
Representative Richard J. Durbin, Chair of the House Subcommittee
on Agricultural Appropriations, observed that traditional farm
programs may need to be substantially revised. He said that 73
percent of program benefits now go to the largest 15 percent of all
producers. He questioned whether benefits should be tied to
production units (bushels and acres) in the future, as they have
been in the past. He emphasized that any new program should
include provisions in three key areas: federally subsidized crop
insurance, environmental provisions, and export assistance. He
also was generally supportive of food safety, agricultural re-
search, and rural development initiatives. Finally, he suggested
that at least some permanent easements should be offered by the
federal government for land that will soon be eligible to come out
of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
In the first of several panel presentations, Lee Swenson, president
of the National Farmers Union, said that he believed there is too
much concentration in the food processing and food retailing
industries. However, two fellow panelists, Julie Maschoff,
representing pork producers, and Bill Nice, a cattleman, argued
that you have to take whatever you're confronted with as a producer
and respond accordingly. Swenson said that a major need of some
producers is to obtain credit on favorable terms, just as some
businesses are offered "deals" by state governments for economic
development purposes.
A stimulating exchange on environmental matters occurred in another
panel session that included short presentations by Maureen Hinkle,
director, agricultural policy, National Audubon Society; William J.
Richards, former chief of the Soil Conservation Service, USDA; and
Ann Sorensen, director, Center for Agriculture in the Environment,
American Farmland Trust.
Ann Sorensen said that the environmental lobby will be stronger
than ever in 1995 farm bill discussions. She said there is some
enthusiasm for "green payments," i.e., farmers would be paid for
good environmental practices, not for taking land out of
production. In a somewhat provocative statement, she further
suggested that protecting the environment may replace protecting
the family farm as a goal of farm policy.
Environmentalists generally have liked the CRP program, according
to Maureeen Hinkle. She said that if it is phased out completely
in the 1995 farm bill, environmentalists will have little, if any,
enthusiasm for traditional price and income supports. Like Ann
Sorensen, she said a ferocious battle over dollars is likely in
1995. Furthermore, she implied that the environmental lobby is
sufficiently strong to not be forced to "cut deals" with producer
groups in 1995, at least early in the process. This was not neces-
sarily the case in 1990.
William Richards generally defended producers, saying that they are
perhaps more interested in good environmental practices than anyone
else. Furthermore, he said that the overwhelming majority of
farmers will meet conservation compliance requirements that become
fully effective on December 31, 1994. He said many farmers are ex-
ceeding minimum residue requirements as part of their conservation
compliance plan.
George Anthan, Washington bureau chief, The Des Moines Register,
presented results of a recent Register poll that sought to
determine who is most influential nationally on agriculture and
food policy matters. In descending order, the top five were
Senator Bob Dole, Leon Panetta (director of the Office of
Management and Budget), Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy, Dean
Kleckner (president of the American Farm Bureau Federation) and Ken
Cook (heads the Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C.).
Finally, a panel presentation on world trends in agriculture
featured Carol L. Brookins, president, World Perspectives, Inc.,
and Robert L. Thompson, president, Winrock International Institute
for Agricultural Development. Both discussed the significant
potential for U.S. agricultural exports to new markets in Asia as
incomes improve in that part of the world. Meanwhile, Russia and
eastern Europe offer less opportunity. And Africa continues to be
the real problem area because of political instability and little
potential for increased buying power. Brookins and Thompson con-
ceded that U.S. agricultural exports will be allowed to increase
only within the broad context of environmentally-sustainable
production practices.
Submitted by Roy Frederick
DELANEY CLAUSE AND NEGLIGIBLE RISK
In September of 1993, administrators from EPA, USDA, and FDA testi-
fied before Congress on the Administration's proposals to modify
pesticide legislation and regulation. The aspect of the testimony
that received the greatest press coverage was the Administration's
proposal to eliminate the Delaney clause, which sets a zero risk
level for carcinogenic pesticides in food. The Administration pro-
posed replacing the Delaney clause with a negligible risk standard,
such as a one-in-a-million chance to get cancer, to bring pesticide
policy more in line with how other types of carcinogens are
handled. Although some regarded this as a relaxation of
environmental standards, in fact, many scientific panels, including
one from the National Academy of Sciences, had recommended that the
Delaney clause be eliminated and a negligible risk standard used
instead. The attention to the Delaney clause has led to less
attention to other aspects of the Administration's proposals.
New Administration Proposal
Specific recommendations include setting targeted pesticide reduc-
tion goals for the year 2000, with these goals to be in place
within the next year. The Administration also set a goal of
placing 75 percent of U.S. agricultural production under integrated
pest management by the year 2000, although they did not indicate
how such a goal would be met nor evaluated. Many other aspects of
the Administration's proposals dealt with details for modifying and
streamlining procedures for pesticide registration, but a few of
these offer some cause for concern. In particular, the Administra-
tion emphasized a need for more rapid registration procedures for
reduced-risk pesticides; however, the precise definition of what
constitutes a reduced-risk pesticide was not indicated.
Biological Controls
Much of the testimony on reduced risk focused on "biological"
pesticides and accelerated registration for these compounds. While
it is true that many of the pesticides of biological origin do have
reduced toxicities and improved environmental safety, there is
nothing intrinsic to being biologically produced that makes a
pesticide safer than a synthetically-produced one. Indeed, the
most toxic substances known are all naturally occurring compounds
(toxins of fungi). Consequently, a policy for reduced risk pesti-
cides that focuses on properties such as environmental persistence
or toxicity would seem to make more scientific sense than one that
discriminates between compounds based on whether they are synthetic
or biological in origin.
Pesticides By Prescription
In another area, the Administration's proposal recognizes the need
to maintain certain pesticides for use in pest management programs,
and for the first time, proposes establishing procedures for the
use of some pesticides exclusively by prescription. Depending
upon the qualifications of the prescribers, some scientists (myself
included) have called for prescription pesticide use as a way to
guarantee that pesticides are used more safely and only as needed.
The Administration's statement falls short of these proposals, but
it does indicate that prescription for some types of compounds may
be a real possibility. Key issues in prescription are proper
training and certification requirements for prescribers.
Unfortunately, it appears that details about prescription will be
passed on to the states (presumably along with any costs) so a true
prescription system seems unlikely.
Area-wide IPM
A final (and what I regard as alarming) mention is made of area-
wide IPM programs. The administration proposal indicates that USDA
and EPA have identified area-wide pest management as an important
activity for dealing with pests. One of the most recent USDA area-
wide "IPM" programs involved the eradication (actually suppression)
of the boll weevil in the southeastern U.S. This "IPM" program
involved the massive use of insecticides to reduce populations and
limit the range of boll weevil. I am aware of similar proposals
for the management of corn rootworms in the midwestern U.S. This
is hardly what one would regard as a true IPM program or a
reasonable approach for trying to reduce pesticide use. An area-
wide program fostering changes in rotations, cultural practices,
and non-chemical procedures could be successful for some insects;
however, previous examples of area-wide programs fall far short of
this ideal.
Potential Future Directions
Surprisingly, one of the most important areas in which the Adminis-
tration could reduce pesticide use and promote IPM, changing the
next farm bill, is not mentioned in the Administration's proposal.
Despite the criticisms, there are many valuable features in the
Administration's proposals. What is disappointing is that the pro-
posals do not move more quickly towards real, sustainable solutions
and away from our current reliance on pesticides. Changes in U.S.
pesticide policy clearly are long overdue, and the final form these
will take will undoubtedly represent compromises between Congress,
the Administration, and many interested parties. But, as press
coverage of the Administration's pesticide proposals illustrate,
the headlines frequently do not tell all of the story.
Submitted by Leon Higley
DID YOU KNOW ...
Bureau of Reclamation, whose projects irrigate more than 9 million
acres of farmland, is dramatically changing its mission to focus on
environmental protection; it recently signed an agreement with the
National Audubon Society to cooperate in restoration and protection
of habitat on reclamation lands in 17 western states.
On Jan. 6 EPA proposed to expand the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
from 320 chemicals to more than 630; 170 of the new chemicals are
pesticide ingredients, including the widely-used malathion. The
TRI is a database of chemicals released by industries and regarded
as having a potentially adverse effect on people and the envi-
ronment.
Nebraska's 2 million head of cattle produce 20-25 million tons of
manure a year, which equals 400 million pounds of N, enough for 2.5
million acres of corn.
B. N. Ames and his colleagues at UC-Berkeley used FDA's Total Diet
Studies to estimate human dietary intake of synthetic pesticides at
0.09 mg/person/day, natural pesticide intake at 1500 mg/person/day.
In order, the largest pesticide users are U.S., Japan, France, and
Brazil. Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Ontario, Canada are
required to lower their pesticide inputs by 50% within the next
five years.
A World Resources Institute report says pesticide use has tripled
over the last 30 years
In 1990 U.S. Poison Centers reported an estimated total of 130,000
pesticide poisonings.
The American Society of Agronomy has formed a new division,
"Integrated Agricultural Systems." One of the objectives is "to
advance systems principles (theory), methods and applications in
science and technology development relevant to creating sustainable
agroecosystems."
ASCS has signed 375,205 CRP contracts since 1986.
The Conservation Technology Information Center, which surveyed more
than 3,000 counties across the U.S., found that 97 million acres,
or 35 percent of total cropland planted in 1993, had used some kind
of conservation tillage.
The federal government owns 435 of this nation's 770 million acres
of rangeland.
1993 corn prices declined 8% from 1991, while the cost of a 40- to
100-hp tractor rose 8%, according to USDA-ERS.
Carbon monoxide levels dropped 18% between June 1991 and June 1993;
scientists attributed the drop in the southern hemisphere to a
recent decrease in agricultural waste burning.
Sec. Babbitt said policymakers need to rewrite the way the gov-
ernment does long-term environmental research in order to account
for all sciences. He cited the drafting of the forest plan as an
example where officials "came smack up against the lack of land-
scape-scale science."
A survey by the National Cattlemen's Assn. of 400 ranchers shows
45% use natural methods to supplement chemical pesticides, and 74%
use conservation tillage.
RESOURCES
"Forage Legumes: Clovers, Birdsfoot Trefoil, Cicer Miklvetch,
Crownvetch, Sainfoin, and Alfalfa," $5, Item SB-5963-EM,
Distribution Center, 20 Coffey Hall, U. of Minn., St. Paul, MN
55108-6064, 612-625-8173.
"Pesticides: A Comparative Study of Industrialized Nations'
Regulatory Systems" (GAO/PMED-93-17), and "Pesticides: Registration
Delays Jeopardize success of Proposed Policy Reform" (GAO/T-RCED-
94-48), General Accounting Office, Washington, DC 20548.
"The Dairy Debate: Consequences of Bovine Growth Hormone and
Rotational Grazing Technologies," $31.50, ANR Publications, U.
California, 6701 San Pablo Ave., Oakland, CA 94608-1239, 510-642-
2431. (See book review in Winter 1994 "The Land Stewardship Let-
ter.")
"Perils Amidst the Promise: Ecological Risks of Transgenic Crops in
a Global Market," by Jane Rissler and Margaret Mellon, $14.40,
Union of Concerned Scientists, 26 Church Street, Cambridge, MA
02238, 617-547-5552.
"A Farmer's Handbook to Livestock Regulation in Nebraska," $6.
Covers state and local regulation of livestock facilities to
achieve surface and groundwater protection, rural zoning
restrictions, developments in Nebraska nuisance law and
restrictions on corporate feeding under Initiative 300. Center for
Rural Affairs, PO Box 406, Walthill, NE 68067, 402-846-5428.
"Leopold Center Progress Report." Volumes 1 (1992), 2 (1993), and
3 (1994) summarize competitive grant research projects. Leopold
Center, 126 Soil Tilth Bldg., Iowa State U., Ames, IA 50011-3120,
515-294-3711.
COMING EVENTS
Contact our office for more information:
May 31 - Natural Resources Science Day 1994, Arlington, VA. Theme
is "Application of Ecosystem Based Science to Natural Resource
Management."
June 5-8 - International Symposium: Environmental Agriculture-
Towards 2000, Queensland, Australia
June 7-10 - Society & Resource Management: The Fifth International
Symposium on Society and Resource Management, Fort Collins, CO
June 9-12 - Cuisine, Agriculture and Social Change, Tucson, AZ.
June 19-23 - 1st International Symposium on Ecosystem Health &
Medicine: Integrating Science, Policy and Management, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada
July 5-9 - 5th International Symposium On Earthworm Ecology, Co-
lumbus, OH.
Aug. 7-10 - Agroforestry and Sustainable Systems Symposium, Fort
Collins, CO.
Aug. 7-10 - "Catch the Conservation Wave," Soil and Water Conser-
vation Annual Meeting, Norfolk, VA.
Aug. 8-11 - Applied Aspects of Insect Biological Control (for
graduate students and biological control implementers), Hickory
Corners, MI.
Aug. 13-21 - International Conference on Organic and Sustainable
Agriculture, Beijing
Sep. 6-8 - Second National Symposium, "Allelopathy in Sustainable
Agriculture, Forestry and Environment," Rajasthan, India
Oct. 2-6 - International Conference on Modern Ag. and the Environ-
ment, Rehovot, Israel.
Nov. 21-25 - Systems-Oriented Research in Agriculture and Rural
Development, Montpellier, France.
Pam Murray, Administrative Coordinator
Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems
U. of Nebraska-Lincoln
v: 402-472-2056 f: -7904