Over the past half century, American agricultural productivity has increased while the number of full time farmers and rural populations have decreased. Although most people believe we have a safe, nutritious, and affordable food supply, the high level of productivity has had negative impacts on the environment and rural communities and has increased farmers' dependence on purchased inputs. As Americans become more concerned about food safety and the environment, a new paradigm for American agriculture is emerging. This new alternative agriculture takes an ecological approach to food production. The challenge facing the land-grant university system is how to answer questions about sustainable agricultural systems, maintain productivity and respond to the needs and concerns of their broadened clientele. Whole farm case studies, focus groups, farm improvement clubs, on-farm research, field-size research trials, and whole farm comparisons are new qualitative and quantitative methods for interdisciplinary research and education. These methods integrate biological and social strategies and bring community members into the research and education process. When these groups work together, questions critical to maintaining the long-term sustainability and productivity of agricultural systems can be answered.

One widely held view of the future of American agriculture is that it will continue the current trend toward fewer but larger farms, greater centralization and vertical integration, and declining rural populations. If so, the research, teaching and extension institutions created to serve agriculture will not survive unless they can adapt to changing political and demographic conditions, especially the domination of the suburbs. This will require these institutions to set new goals for themselves. Their historic pursuit of increased technical efficiency already has been so successful that it has sharply reduced the farm population, which has been their main base of public support. Suburban America, in contrast, will demand an agriculture that is more in harmony with nature. Alternative notions of the Common Good can provide the philosophical basis for this shift Historically, the economic system, including agriculture, has regarded nature as something to be used to advance human well-being. In this view (which could be called “Liberal” in the 19th century sense of the term), the reason to protect nature is to insure that it can continue to serve human needs. In contrast, the “Ecocentric” view of the Common Good emphasizes that humans are part of an ecological community, and that we must optimize the balance between human needs and the health of the ecosystem.

Unlike other creatures, humans have the unique ability to delay their own extinction. We can store, analyze and transmit information to the next generations, and education helps us adapt to varied ecological situations. Looking beyond the 21st century to a post-industrial society where biological systems will emerge as the most renewable and sustainable activities on the planet, we need educational systems to prepare creative problem solvers who can confront and adapt to change and be willing to move toward lifelong growth and learning. Students need to understand the complexity of biological systems and the importance of connectedness. We need to educate them about watersheds and ecosystems, about the roles of a wide range of species and how they interact, and about long-term sustainability. Some programs already involve interactive student activities, case studies, and real world examples, and have empowered students to formulate their own approaches to challenges. A new initiative in the North Central region includes a structured experiential program in practical agroecosystem studies that taps into the technical and financial resources in the region's 12 land-grant universities and other organizations. In the future, we will need to forge more linkages between education and research, understand the impacts of alternative strategies for food production and other human needs, and search for ways to empower people to pursue their own educational agendas. This approach should include a mosaic of educational opportunities that will promote the survival of our species beyond the 22nd century.

Sustainable agricultural research and education have gained acceptability within the land-grant system, but they still must be fully integrated into its fabric. Challenges remain in three key areas: knowledge generation, research and education, and funding. New biological and ecological knowledge is needed on plant-animal-human-environment interactions from the microbial level on upward so that we can move beyond anecdotal evidence of biological integration efficiencies to scientific understanding of the underlying processes and opportunities for human intervention. Socioeconomic research must address human motivations to change farming methods and the likely impacts of these changes on farmers, consumers, other species, and the quality of the environment.

Generating this knowledge will affect the integration of research and education. Having farmers set the research and outreach agenda dissolves the old distinction between research and extension. This situation is complicated by budgetary stress and uncertainty about the dividing line between public and private responsibilities. The funding of sustainableagriculture creates a dilemma. Earmarked funding has helped legitimize sustainable agriculture in the land-grant university, but if it fails to become integrated into the routine land-grant research and education agenda, it will lose its newly gained momentum in the event those funds disappear.

Research on agricultural production has been largely the domain of an institutional system established especially for the purpose. However, the complexities and diverse character of agriculture require diversified modes of research. Such a strategy might be better pursued by a more diversified set of research institutions. Non-land-grant institutions, although lacking the land-grant system's strong experience in agriculture and its close ties with farmers, potentially represent a large pool of scientific expertise in a broad range of fields relevant to agriculture. Also, they are under different institutional constraints, and may be in a better position to do more speculative, long-range research that does not promise immediate practical benefits. Although such research has been criticized by people in the sustainable agriculture movement who believe that research should be more directed at farmers' current problems, a truly sustainable agriculture will require a deeper grasp of how agricultural systems work. Achieving this will demand a breadth of understanding that extends beyond the production-oriented studies that dominate current sustainable agriculture research programs.

Practical Farmers of Iowa was founded in 1985 to help farmers generate and share information on environmentally sound farming methods. Its on-farm research trials allow farmers to do statistically valid comparisons of competing techniques, such as different weed control methods. However, sustainable agriculture means more than providing farmers with adequate information about appropriate techniques. It also requires policies that reward farmers for adopting sustainable methods and that support rural community well-being.

Research and extension personnel are beginning to look for new strategies to involve more farmers and the non-farm public in their programs. Two approaches we have used are wholefarm case studies (WFCS) and focus groups. WFCS in Oregon and Washington led to several research and educational programming ideas that are currently being pursued in both states. A focus group to study water quality, nitrate leaching and farming practices in Skagit County, Washington is one outcome of the WFCS process. It is made up of 16 people, including farmers, university personnel, members of environmental groups, and government representatives.

We review these two complementary participatory strategies for systems-oriented sustainable agriculture research and education programs. Both have been very useful for building problem-solving partnerships between the land-grant universities and agricultural and environmental constituents in our area. Noteworthy outcomes include: complementary applied on-farm and experiment station research; farming systems analysis; public education; new linkages with environmental and agricultural interest groups; additional grant funds to address identified priority issues; and interdisciplinary teams that cut across the biological and social sciences and include diverse citizen representation.

Sustainable agriculture has gained acceptance as a conceptual approach for shaping farming systems of the future. All definitions of sustainable agriculture include food productivity, food safety, resource protection, quality of life and environmental quality. However, the sustainability of a wide range of farming systems has been judged only subjectively. Currently there are no scientific criteria to evaluate the sustainability of a specific farming system. We propose a framework for evaluating the relative sustainability of a farming system using nine attributes: profitability, productivity, soil quality, water quality, air quality, energy efficiency, fish and wildlife habitat, quality of life, and social acceptance. Each attribute is scored and then weighted in a way that is subjective and dependent on the judgment of the evaluating team, but that must be expressed numerically. The scoring must be based on quantifiable constraints within each attribute. Constraints can be quantified by direct measurement, which is already true for those related to profitability, productivity, water quality and energy efficiency. Constraints that are not readily measurable will need other evaluation techniques, including expert opinion and computer simulation models.

A 6-yr interdisciplinary field project using large plots was initiated in 1985 to assist Pacific Northwest growers in developing an integrated pest management system to control weeds, reduce erosion and grow crops profitably. Run by a network of 10 to 14 scientists from eight disciplines supported by five agencies, the project showed that wellmanaged conservation tillage systems had a higher average profit and lower economic risk than traditional conventionally tilled systems. Information was disseminated successfully to user groups by field days, plot tours and an educational video. Organizational strategies included an interdisciplinary design with three levels of objectives. Cooperating scientists were invited to participate in writing the proposal and followed strict field protocols and attended mandatory organizational meetings. This long-term study used large machinery, went beyond the transitional stage and allowed treatments to mature. Limitations included the restricted number of experimental variables, the location of the plots, the large labor force required, and publication decisions.

To examine the long-term productivity, profitability, and ecological interactions associated with whole farming systems, we established an interdisciplinary replicated comparison of a conventional and an experimental alternative crop-livestock farming system in southwest Virginia in 1988. The conventional system uses the best management practices commonly used in the mid-Atlantic region. The alternative system puts more emphasis on crop rotation, grazing and forage management, conservation tillage, cover crops, and integrated pest management. Each is managed as a year-round system, with management decisions based on the system's overall goals.

The comparison is planned to run for 10 years, so that only preliminary conclusions can be drawn so far. These include the following: 1) similar total productivity can be achieved with either reduced or full use of herbicides and insecticides; 2) the need for N fertilization can be decreased using grazing management and short-rotation alfalfa; and 3) recycling of manure from cattle fed corn silage provides most nutrients needed for the following corn crop. The comparative profitability of the two systems has fluctuated among years, and it is too early to know which system is more profitable. The process of interdisciplinary systems research has increased our knowledge of total system interactions, challenged prior assumptions, and clarified the methodological problems of integrated systems research.

In 1989, a group of researchers, farmers and farm advisors initiated an interdisciplinary study of the transition from conventional to low-input and organic management of a 4-year, five-crop rotation. Crop yields initially varied among systems, but now appear to be approaching each other after a transition period that included the development of practices and equipment most appropriate for each system. Farming practices and crop production costs are carefully documented to compare the various systems' economic performance and biological risks. Supplying adequate N and managing weeds were challenges for the low-input and organic systems during the first rotation cycle, and experiments are being conducted on an 8-acre companion block to find solutions to these and other problems. Leading conventional and organic growers provide a much-needed farmer perspective on cropping practices and economic interpretations, because we try to provide “best farmer” management of each system. Research groups within the project are focusing on soil microbiology, economics, pest management, agronomy and cover crop management.

Several themes emerged from this conference suggesting how science can be better linked to sustainability. Major themes that need to be addressed include: institutions and change; linkages among different groups involved in the food system, from producers through consumers; indicators of sustainability that encompass “quality of life”; changing the behavior of farmers and researchers to make agriculture more sustainable; and new approaches to research that are suited to alternative agricultures. Throughout the conference these themes were developed as farmers, researchers, and others exchanged their diverse viewpoints and experiences. These viewpoints are reflected both in the formal papers published in this issue and in the comments of panelists that I will draw on in trying to convey the major themes of the conference.

Researchers at land-grant universities are under pressure to widen their research objectives, which requires them to expand their inquiry from a disciplinary base to a systems level, to include farmers and nonuniversity organizations as research collaborators, and to communicate with broader sectors of the public, such as consumers and policy makers. However, there are few rewards for scientists who undertake long-term, systems based research. An approach that brings together multidisciplinary, multiprofession teams using a radial model of organization has successfully addressed these challenges in Wisconsin. A small “hub” manages the team, with the remaining participants linked to component taskforces or “satellite” projects. This enables research to be done on both multidisciplinary and related single-discipline questions. Radially organized teams can attract diverse people with different time commitments and reward incentives. The research meets the criteria of public and academic audiences alike. For innovative research and extension efforts like radial teams to reach their full potential, larger institutional changes are needed within the land-grant system and professional agricultural societies.