Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:47:20.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agriculture's mission: Finding a partner

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

R.L. Zimdahl  and
R.L. Speer
R.L. Zimdahl*
Affiliation:
Professor of Weed Science, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management
R.L. Speer
Affiliation:
Instructor, Department of Philosophy, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
*
Corresponding author is R.L. Zimdahl (rzimdahl@agsci.colostate.edu).
Get access

Abstract

What is the mission of agriculture and what techniques are used to accomplish the mission? This paper examines mission statements of agribusiness companies, agricultural producers, and environmental groups. One hypothesis is that agricultural producer groups share missions and objectives with environmental groups and their mission statements should demonstrate shared goals. A second hypothesis is that agricultural producer groups do not share missions or objectives with agribusiness companies and their respective mission statements should demonstrate their lack of common interests. The paper also asks which of these three groups will be the best sources of intellectual and other support as land-grant universities strive to fulfill their respective missions. It is not obvious from the mission statements that the three groups studied share missions or objectives. The mission statements neither reveal clear information on the second hypothesis, that agricultural producers do not share missions or operational objectives with agribusiness companies, nor do the mission statements demonstrate their lack of common interests. Analysis of mission statements is one place to learn which groups have common goals and should work together. But this is only a beginning.

Keywords

agribusinessenvironmental groupsmission statementsresearch cooperation
Type
Commentary
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 35 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Altieri, M. 1985. Ecological diversity and the sustainability of California agriculture. In Sustainability of California Agriculture: A Symposium. University of California, Davis, p. 106.Google Scholar
2.Ausubel, J. 1996. Can technology spare the planet? Amer. Scientist 84:166–178.Google Scholar
3.Avery, D.T. 1995. Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High-yield Farming. Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
4.Avery, D.T. 1997. Saving the planet with pesticides, biotechnology and European farm reform. Brighton Crop Protection Conf. p. 3–18.Google Scholar
5.Coletti, E. 1999. Ethics rank low among CEOs. Christian Science Monitor (07 12):12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Daly, H.E. 1996. Beyond Growth. Beacon Press, Boston, MA. p. 23.Google Scholar
7.Goldschmidt, W. 1998. Conclusion: The urbanization of rural America. In Thu, K.M. and Durrenberger, E.P. (eds.). Pigs, Profits, and Rural Communities, State University of New York, Albany. p. 183–198.Google Scholar
8.Gressel, J., and Rotteveel, T.. 2000. Genetic and ecological risks from biotechnologically derived herbicide resistant crops (BD-HRC), with decision trees for less biased, regional, risk assessment. Plant Breeding Rev. 18:251–303.Google Scholar
9.Grose, T.K. 1999. Called to account. Time 154(10 4).Google Scholar
10.Harwood, R.R. 1990. A history of sustainable agriculture. In Edwards, C.A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R.H., and House, G. (eds.). Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA. p. 3–19.Google Scholar
11.Krauthammer, C. 1997. Make it snappy. [essay]. Time 150(07 21):84.Google Scholar
12.Kuttner, R. 1996. Taking care of business. Amer. Prospect 27(07–08):6–8.Google Scholar
13.Lehman, H. 1995. Rationality and Ethics in Agriculture. University of Idaho Press, Moscow. p. 149.Google Scholar
14.Mac Lane, S. 1996. Should universities imitate industry? Amer. Scientist 84:520–521.Google Scholar
15.Marcus, A.I. 1985. Agricultural Science and the Quest for Legitimacy: Farmers, Agricultural Colleges, and Experiment Stations, 1870–1890. Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar
16.Merchant, C. 1990. Environmental ethics and political conflict: A view from California. Environ. Ethics. 12:45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Rachels, J. 1986. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 2nd ed.McGraw-Hill, NewYork, p. 77.Google Scholar
18.Rahm, D. 1997. The land-grant university mission. Ag Bioethics Forum 9(1):5–6. Iowa State University Bioethics Program, Ames. Web site http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/Bioethics/forum/rahm.html (verified June 2000).Google Scholar
19.Readings, B. 1996. The University in Ruins. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
20.Rollin, B.E. 1996. Bad ethics, good ethics and the genetic engineering of animals in agriculture. J. Animal Sci. 74:535–541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Sclove, R.E. 1998. Better approaches to science policy [editorial]. Science 279:1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Simmonds, N.W. 1991. Bandwagons I have known. Tropical Agric. Assoc. Newsl. p. 7–9.Google Scholar
23.Smith, T. 1997. Some remarks on university/business relations, technological development, and the public good. Ag Bioethics Forum 9(1):6–9. Iowa State University Bioethics Program, Ames. Web site http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/Bioethics/forum/smith.html (verified June 2000).Google Scholar
24.Soros, G. 1997. The capitalist threat. Atlantic Monthly 279(02):48.Google Scholar
25.Waggoner, P. 1994. How much land can ten billion people spare for nature? CAST Task Force Rept. 121. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
26.Wilkinson, T. 1999. Environmentalists discover a curious ally. Christian Science Monitor (12 13):3.Google Scholar
27.Wojcik, J. 1989. The Arguments of Agriculture: A Casebook in Contemporary Agricultural Controversy. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, IN. p. x.Google Scholar