Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T13:12:12.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Applying Lisa Concepts on Southern Farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2017

John E. Ikerd
John E. Ikerd*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The term LISA was coined in 1988 as an acronym to identify a federally funded research and education program designed to address the public issue of agriculture and the environment (USDA-CSRS, p. 2). LISA is made up of two related, but different, concepts: low input and sustainable agriculture. This combination reflects a compromise between two different perspectives of the environmental issues confronting agriculture.

The low input perspective is that farmers must reduce their use of commercial chemical inputs as a means of reducing environmental and ecological risks. The sustainable agriculture perspective is that long-run productivity and utility of agriculture depend ultimately on our ability to keep farms both ecologically sound and economically viable. Reduced reliance on commercial inputs is seen as one means of addressing the ecological risks that could threaten long-run sustainability.

Type
Invited Papers and Discussions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , July 1991 , pp. 43 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1991

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

Altieri, Miguel A. “Agroecology — The Scientific Basis for Alternative Agriculture.” Division of Biological Control, University of California, Berkeley, 1983.Google Scholar
Council of Agricultural Science and Technology. Alternative Agriculture, Scientists' Review, CAST, Ames, IA, 1990.Google Scholar
Ikerd, John E. “Agriculture's Search for Sustainability and Profitability.” Soil and Water Cons., Vol.45, No.1(1990):18–23.Google Scholar
Knutson, Ronald D., Robert Taylor, C., Penson, John B. and Smith, Edward G.. “Economic Impacts of Reduced Chemical Use.” Knutson and Associates, College Station, TX, 1990.Google Scholar
Monson, Sandra. Natural Resources Inventory Summary Data for Regional Cropping Systems. Unpublished data in files of author, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, 1990.Google Scholar
National Research Council. Alternative Agriculture, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1989.Google Scholar
Pimentel, David, McLaughlin, Lori, Zepp, Andrew, Lakitan, Benyamin, Kraus, Tamara, Kleinman, Peter, Vancini, Fabius, John Roach, V., Graap, Ellen, Keeton, William S., and Selig, Gabe. Handbook on Pest Management in Agriculture, Vol. I, Pimentel, D., ed., Cornell University, NY, 1991.Google Scholar
Rodale, Robert. “Agricultural Systems: Importance of Sustainability.” National Forum, Honorary Society of Phi Kappa Phi, Baton Rouge, LA, pp.2–6, 1988.Google Scholar
Ruttan, Vernon W. “Sustainability is Not Enough.” Better Crops With Plant Foods, Potash and Phosphate Institute, Atlanta, GA, pp. 6–9, 1989.Google Scholar
Savory, Allan. Holistic Resource Management, Covelo, CA: Island Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Toffler, Alvin. Power Shifts. New York: Bantam Boob, 1990.Google Scholar
United States Congress. Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. U.S. House of Representatives Conference Report, S-2830, Number 101–916. Washington, DC, 1990.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. LISA 88-89. Cooperative State Research Service, Washington, DC, 1990.Google Scholar