Evidence indicates a strong positive relationship between increases in nitrogen fertilizer use on cropland and nitrate concentrations in shallow ground water. This raises concern about the fate and efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer with current farming practices. Approximately 50 percent of the nitrogen fertilizer applied may be recovered by agronomic crops and 35 percent or less removed in the harvested grain of a crop such as corn. The residual nitrogen is subject to loss by several processes, one being leaching from the crop root zone. Alternative production systems that provide ground water protection must give attention to improved management of nitrogen fertilizer and to practices that minimize the need for nitrogen fertilizer and reduce soil nitrate concentrations. Most important in nitrogen fertilizer management is to more closely match nitrogen availability in the soil with crop needs and to avoid over-fertilization. Nitrogen fertilizer use can be reduced by alternate cropping of low and high nitrogen-demanding crops, use of legumes in the crop rotation to fix nitrogen, and proper use of manures, crop residues, and other organic wastes. Residual nitrates in soil can be reduced by use of cover crops, nitrogen-scavenging crops in the rotation, and alternating shallow and deep-rooted crops. Conservation tillage alone as used with many conventional cropping systems will probably not change the current status of nitrate leaching. Practices used by organic farmers should be carefully studied as possible approaches for ground water protection and adaptation into conservation tillage systems for conserving soil and water resources.

Agricultural pesticides and fertilizers have contaminated ground water in areas throughout the U.S. This contamination may adversely affect more than 50 million people. The cost of monitoring to determine the extent of ground water contamination in vulnerable areas is likely to exceed one billion dollars. To reduce the possibility of contamination farmers can adopt “low-input” production methods. Unfortunately, several factors inhibit farmers from adopting low-input methods. These factors include the tendency of farmers to ignore the external costs of agrichemical use, especially environmental damage, the lack of up-to-date information describing low-input farming techniques, and government support programs that indirectly discourage farmers from adopting low-input methods. The federal government can take several steps to eliminate these obstacles. Farm support programs can be changed to eliminate incentives that encourage heavy agrichemical use and to require more stringent environmental compliance to be eligible for program benefits. Taxes can be imposed on agrichemicals to offset their external costs and to provide new funds for research on alternatives. Finally, current agricultural research priorities can be shifted to emphasize low-input production methods.

The nature of integrated pest management (IPM) is discussed in relation to the history and current state of science, agriculture and pest management. The potential for future development and adoption of IPM is evaluated in relation to three alternate future models. It is concluded that IPM will have an important role to play in relation to management of the environment and our future quality of life.

An innovative cattle finishing program was tested in which beef cattle were fed on mature zones of standing corn crop in a regulated manner. The corn crop was planted at weekly intervals in a continual rotation year round. When the first planting of corn reached the early dent stage of maturity, nine beef steers (average beginning weight 234.8 ± 7.55* kg) were put in the field inside movable cattle pens. The cattle pens were only large enough to provide one full day of feed and were moved into fresh corn twice a day. The cattle were also provided protein and mineral supplements to balance the corn diet. The test results show that after the initial learning period of a few weeks, cattle consumed practically all the corn ears and about 70 percent of available corn stover. The performance of these steers was compared with that of a control group of nine steers that were fed standard feedlot diet. When feed availability was adequate, there was no significant difference (P < 0.05) in the rate of weight gain between the infield corn-fed animals and the control animals. The test demonstrated that beef cattle could be fed standing field corn for at least three-quarters of the feeding period without affecting the meat quality as measured by rib eye area, fat content, texture and color of lean, and quality grade. All the steers had liver flukes at the time of slaughter and were apparently infected before the start of the experiment. The rate of weight gain and the feed conversion efficiency of both groups of cattle were poorer than normal, possibly because of liver fluke infestation. The results of this test should, therefore, be taken as suggestive rather than definitive. No other major health or disease problem was observed during the in-field corn feeding period.

Pollution of ground water by agricultural chemicals and nitrate is one of the major problems facing agriculture in the 1980s. Before this problem is resolved additional research is needed in the following areas: 1) identification of areas within each state where ground water contamination is most likely to occur; 2) data to establish levels of pesticides in ground water that present health risks; 3) the fate and transport of pesticides in soil and underlying strata; 4) improved nitrogen use efficiency of agronomic and horticultural crops and improved management of nitrogen fertilizers; and 5) cropping and management systems that reduce or eliminate the need for problem pesticides. Improved research information in these areas should assist society in resolving current problems of ground water contamination.

The conversion from high to low input agricultural systems has been studied at the field and farm scale but analysis of the effects of conversion at the landscape or regional scale has not previously been attempted. In this paper, we apply existing historical data bases on changing inputs and changing land uses to project possible effects of conversion on productivity and environmental quality on the landscape scale. We chose two areas for the analysis of changing input effects on landscape structure and function. One area is a region defined as the southern half of the lower peninsula of Michigan (Southern Lower Michigan or SLM). The second area is a small watershed, Watershed K of the Little River Watershed, in the Gulf-Atlantic Coastal Plain of Georgia. In SLM, land use data suggest that lower input use will lower per hectare productivity, and that regional production can only be maintained by bringing marginal lands into production. The prime lands not already in crop production in SLM are mostly poorly drained or sandy soils which will require either drainage modifications or supplemental irrigation for crop production. Intensification of input use in SLM during the last 20 years has led to increases in aggregate production, but may have contributed to declining water quality in the Grand River, the major drainage of that region. On Watershed K, corn grain yield was linearly related to N fertilizer application. A hypothetical yield response curve with a yield of 1500 kg/ha of corn grain without nitrogen fertilizer was selected for use in the analysis of changing inputs. Land use data on Watershed K showed that even with no nitrogen input to corn, the aggregate production of corn could be maintained without encroachment on riparian areas which are critical to maintenance of water quality. Our analyses, which are limited to historical data on the relationships among input, yield, and environmental quality, raise many questions about the landscape scale effects of conversion from high to low input systems. Relationships between inputs and yields are poorly understood at the field scale and relationships among inputs, productivity, and environmental quality have not been established at the landscape scale. Our analyses also raise questions about the need to maintain aggregate landscape production in the light of crop surpluses and declining environmental quality.

The Cooperative Extension Services in many states have concentrated on educational publications and programs which describe the complexities of the hydrologic cycle and where pollutants can enter the system. Recognizing that farming is a prime source of nonpoint source pollution in some areas, extension programs have focused on alternative agricultural practices which can reduce that pollution. Both national and state extension services have published recommendations on increasing public awareness, developed linkages with research, and provided leadership in education about pollution problems and how to solve them. The current national task forces on extension priorities include “water quality” as one of eight key areas for future extension emphasis. Alternative farming practices which can help reduce the pollution levels from agriculture include careful soil sampling, interpretation of analyses, setting yield goals, and matching nutrient applications to crop needs. Modified methods of nutrient application can also help. Reduced tillage, crop rotations, increased use of legumes, and keeping cover on the land through a greater part of the year can all help. Reduced applications of pesticides and use of alternative pest control measures have potential to improve ground water quality. There are economic as well as environmental reasons to reduce chemical and fertilizer applications in agriculture. This is a critical time for producers and researchers to examine alternative practices which can help improve ground water quality for future generations.

Agricultural production is an important source of ground water contamination in many regions of the U.S. Ground water contamination is the unintended side effect of actions by economic agents pursuing their interests within the legal framework established by current public policy. Under existing policy, agricultural producers do not have changes as noted to consider off-site effects of their decisions on ground water supplies. Given these policy rules, producers can be expected to cause such damage until their rights and obligations are adjusted by policy. The farmer is simply responding in a predictable manner to opportunities existing within the economic system. Possible rationales for government action to protect ground water quality include: 1) the existence of “third party” effects in the form of off-site damages associated with degraded water supplies; 2) overuse of an “open-access” resource; 3) society's desire to make conservative ground water management decisions to avoid the risks of contamination; and 4) individuals' demands for ground water protection even though they may not expect to directly benefit. Alternative policy instruments for ground water protection include taxes, subsidies, regulations and prohibitions, education, and public spending. Different policy approaches are being employed to address agricultural contamination of ground water. One policy approach emphasizes producers ' lack of accurate information and appropriate decision-making, and recommends educating farmers about how their profits can be increased by improved decisions regarding inputs. A second approach is to change the rules and incentives to compel or induce producers to act in a way that improves ground water quality. If ground water quality follows the pattern of most public issues, effective policies will be developed only as the cost of failing to act becomes known. Research and delivery of information on the costs of ground water protection and the costs of not protecting ground water are likely to be key factors affecting the formation of future ground water quality policies.

Modern, conventional agriculture has generalized the technology of farming, minimizing the significance of the relationship between farmers and their particular land. This generalization undermines farm culture and impedes its transmission from generation to generation. To avoid making the same mistake, ecologists designing the new, lower input agriculture should: 1) reject any black box presentations of their systems that the farmer cannot understand and that interfere with the relationship between the farmer and the land; 2) make systematic efforts to rediscover traditional farm wisdom and incorporate it into the new system; 3) utilize academics in a major program of local, adult education for farmers; and 4) reorganize extension services to facilitate the lateral transfer of information from farmer to farmer, and develop methods of incorporating farmers into the agricultural research process at the planning stage.