Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T06:54:57.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutional issues and strategies for sustainable agriculture: View from within the land-grant university

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Sandra S. Batie  and
Scott M. Swinton
Sandra S. Batie
Affiliation:
Professor in Food and Agricultural Policy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Scott M. Swinton
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Get access

Abstract

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.

Keywords

sustainable agricultural research fundingextensionintegrationon-farm research
Type
Selected Papers from the Conference on Science and Sustainability, Seattle, Washington, October 24–26, 1993
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 9 , Issue 1-2 , June 1994 , pp. 23 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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.Anderson, M.D., and Lockeretz, W.. 1992. Sustainable agriculture research in the ideal and in the field. J. Soil and Water Conservation 47:100–104.Google Scholar
2.Batie, S.S. 1992. Biotechnology and science: The imperatives of choice. 18th James C. Snyder Memorial Lecture in Agricultural Economics. Purdue University, W. Lafayette, Indiana. March 12.Google Scholar
3.Clement, L.L. (compiler). 1992. Participatory On-Farm Research and Education for Agricultural Sustainability. Proceedings of a conference at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, July 30-August 1. Illinois Agric. Exp. Sta., Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
4.Crookston, R.K. 1984. The rotation effect — what causes it to boost yields? Crops and Soils 36(6):12–14.Google Scholar
5.Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy. 1990. Research Agenda for the 1990s. Planning and Budget Subcommittee. Texas Agric. Exp. Sta., College Station.Google Scholar
6.Hallberg, G.R. 1989. Pesticide pollution of groundwater in the humid United States. Agric., Ecosystems and Environment 26:299–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Harwood, R.R. 1985. The integration efficiencies of cropping systems. In Edens, T.C., Fridgen, C., and Battenfield, S.L. (eds). Sustainable Agriculture and Integrated Farming Systems. Michigan State Univ. Press, E. Lansing, pp. 64–75.Google Scholar
8.Harwood, R. 1993. Management of the ‘living’ soil for human well being in an increasingly populous and interdependent world. Presented at the International Symposium on World Agricultural Resources in the 21st Century: Environmental Quality, Natural Resources and Technologies. Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, Morrilton, Arkansas. May 5–6.Google Scholar
9.King, R.P., Lybecker, D.W., Regmi, A., and Swinton, S.M.. 1993. Bioeconomic models of crop production systems: Design, development, and use. Review of Agricultural Economics 15:389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Lakeland Agricultural Complex and Arlington Research Station. 1992. The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial: Second Report. Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
11.Lockeretz, W. 1991. Information requirements of reduced-chemical production methods. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 6:97–103.Google Scholar
12.Lockeretz, W., Shearer, G., and Kohl, D.H.. 1981. Organic farming in the corn belt. Science 211:540–547.Google Scholar
13.McGrath, D., Lev, L.S., Murray, H., and William, R.D.. 1992. Farmer/scientist focus sessions: A how-to manual. Working Paper No. 92–104. Graduate Faculty of Economics, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis.Google Scholar
14.National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. Board on Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
15.Nowak, P.J. 1992. Why farmers adopt production technology. J. Soil and Water Conservation 47:14–16.Google Scholar
16.Shaner, W.W., Philipp, P.F., and Schmehl, W.R.. 1982. Farming Systems Research and Development: Guidelines for Developing Countries. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar