America's appetite for all-natural, organic food has grown at the remarkable rate of over 20% annually for the past 10 years. This makes organic agriculture—farming and processing food without the use of synthetic chemicals, such as synthetic pesticides and many inorganic fertilizers—the fastest growing sector of America's agricultural economy. Contrast that to the scarcity of organic items to be found 20 years ago … and those only in specialty shops. Today, organic selections are as easy to find in conventional supermarkets and mainstream stores as in natural food stores.

Cover-crop residues left on the soil surface as a mulch in no-till crop production systems protect the soil from erosion, increase water infiltration and suppress weeds. Because many growers using cover crops want to reduce chemical inputs, non-chemical methods of killing or suppressing cover crops are needed. In the first part of this paper we review the current literature and discuss advantages and disadvantages of five mechanical methods for killing cover crops, i.e., mowing, rolling, roll-chopping, undercutting and partial rototilling. We also report on three new studies that broaden the current literature, including planting into freshly killed residue. In the first study, the use of planter attachments to remove surface residues from the planter row improved stands when cotton was no-till planted 2–7 days after mowing cover crops in Mississippi. In the second study, 100% of a rye/vetch cover crop in Missouri was killed by mowing, and greater than 90% was killed by roll-chopping. Cotton stands were reduced by the use of row cleaners that clogged when the cover crop was roll-chopped or mowed on the same day that the crop was planted. The third study evaluated three methods of mechanically killing summer cover crops in North Carolina. Undercutting provided greater than 95% kill for five of six broadleaf species, and two of five grass species. Mowing effectively killed all six broadleaf cover crops, but re-growth occurred with three of five grasses, with the exception of nearly mature German foxtail millet and mature Japanese millet. In general, rolling did not effectively kill broadleaf or grass cover crops, with the exception of nearly mature German foxtail millet, mature Japanese millet and mature buckwheat.

Homegardens are a common smallholder agroforestry system in Indonesia and throughout the tropics. These speciesrich, tree-based systems produce non-wood and wood products for both home use and market sale. Due to their high biomass, these systems simultaneously offer potential for carbon (C) storage. While small size limits the amount of C stored by individual smallholder agroforestry systems, on a per area basis these systems can store as much C as some secondary forests. In aggregate, smallholder homegarden agroforestry systems can contribute significantly to a region's carbon budget while simultaneously enhancing smallholder livelihoods. A field study in Lampung, Indonesia indicates that homegardens with an average age of 13 years store 35.3 Mg C ha−1 in their above-ground biomass, which is on par with the C stocks reported for similar-aged secondary forests in the same area. However, to compare accurately the C stocks of different land-use systems a scale is required that adjusts C stocks of the systems' ages and rotation lengths to a common base. The time-averaged C stock, which is half the C stock at the maximum rotation length, serves this purpose. Our projections reveal that, depending on management options, the time-averaged above-ground C stocks of homegarden systems could vary from 30 to 123 Mg C ha−1. These projected timeaveraged above-ground C stocks of homegardens are substantially higher than those of Imperata-cassava systems (2.2 Mg C ha−1), which is an extensive vegetation type in the study area. If homegarden systems and other smallholder tree-based systems were to expand in currently degraded and underutilized lands, such as Imperata grasslands, the C sequestration potential would be about 80 Mg C ha−1, with considerable variation depending on species composition and management practices. Clear opportunity exists to induce management that leads to higher C stocks at the systems level. However, incentive mechanisms are needed that assure smallholders will benefit from selecting management practices that favor higher C stocks.

Canada's commitment under the Kyoto Protocol is to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 6% of its 1990 levels. Each industrial sector is investigating alternative technologies, production and management practices that can decrease their GHG emissions. The macroeconomic impacts of four mitigation strategies to reduce GHG emissions from Canada's agriculture sectors were measured using an input-output model. The size of the GHG reduction from each mitigation strategy depended on whether agricultural soils were included as a carbon (C) sink. Including agricultural soils as a C sink impacts on the absolute amount of GHG emissions that must be reduced and the relative importance of the various mitigation strategies. This will be a key factor in policy development. Only one strategy, improving forage quality by 15%, had positive macroeconomic impacts in all situations. It was projected that this strategy would increase industrial output by $106.97 M (M = million; all $ Canadian), gross domestic product at factor cost (GDP) by $45.51 M and employment by 689 jobs. This strategy decreased GHG emissions by 0.07% below the ‘business as usual’ (BAU) situation when sinks were included. Increasing the adoption of zero-till farming had a positive macroeconomic impact only when the industrial sector effects were included. However, when household and industrial-sector impacts were combined, the results were decreases in industrial output of $286.90 M, GDP of $55.98 M and employment by 769 jobs. The mitigation strategy decreased GHG emissions by 3.06% below the BAU situation when sinks were included in the estimate. Improved soil nutrient management through more efficient use of N fertilizer had a negative net impact on the economy. This mitigation strategy had a direct impact on the agriculture and the fertilizer sectors, resulting in net decreases in industrial output of $70.76 M, GDP of $43.38 M and employment of 518 jobs. It was estimated that this mitigation strategy would decrease GHG emissions by 1.37% below the BAU situation. The last mitigation strategy was a permanent plant cover program. This generated the largest negative impact on the economy. It was projected to decrease industrial output by $1192.63 M, GDP by $392.17 M and employment by 6155 jobs. The strategy decreased GHG emissions by 1.73% below the BAU situation.

The extensive adoption of transgenic plants now under way has provoked heated debate about its effects on human health, rural life and the environment. But too many critics are neglecting to zero in on transgenic technology's Achilles heel: its inherent inability to deliver on its promises. Longstanding theory and practice predict, and growing evidence confirms, that transgenes cannot dramatically accelerate plant breeding, let alone revolutionize agriculture, save the family farm or feed the world.

Those engaged in agriculture possess a definite but unexamined moral confidence or certainty about the correctness of what they do. This paper examines the origins of that confidence and questions its continued validity. The paper argues that those engaged in agriculture are morally confident about the rightness of their activity. The basis of the moral confidence is not obvious to those who possess it or to the public. In fact, the moral confidence that pervades agricultural practice is potentially harmful because it is unexamined. Suggestions for expanding agriculture's moral scope are made to approach the question of where moral values originate, and what are, or ought to be, the moral standards for agriculture in our post-industrial, information-age society. Part of expanding agriculture's moral scope will be giving up some of our hubris about the goodness of our culture and its agriculture. The paper advocates analysis of what it is about our agriculture and our society that thwarts or limits our aspirations for agriculture and needs modification. We must strive to nourish and strengthen those features of our agriculture that are beneficial and change those that are not. To fit ourselves to this task, we must be sufficiently confident to study ourselves and our institutions and dedicated to the task of modifying both.