Introduction

Today agriculture in Canada and the United States is in transition. In 1862, more than
one-half of all Americans lived on farms, but this number dwindled to about 20% by 1940.
Prior to World War II, agriculture could be classified as organic farming. The war, and the
need for argents of chemical warfare, saw the development of new chemicals that had
agricutural use after the war.Also, the need to increase food production, especially for Europe
following the war, created a major change in agriculture. Crop production became large-scale,
highly specialized, capital and energy intensive big business. Monocultural cropping cash
grain systems of corn, soybeans, cotton, wheat, and rice replaced the smaller, labor-intensive
prewar farms (figure 9.1). Monoculture is the pratice of planting a single crop in a field.
Fossil-fuel-based prodution technologies using heavy equipment and synthetically
compounded fertilizers and pesticides were adopted by American farmers (figure 9.2). The
system of monoculture cropping remains the dominants system, but environmental concerns
and problems with this system are causing the American farmer to consider alternatives.
Continuing problems with the present agricultural system include: soil erosion, surface
and groundwater pollution, aquifer drawdown from irrigation, loss of soil productivity, high
energy cost, loss of wildlife, human and animal health threats, cost and loss of effectiveness of
chemicals, and the growing capital-intensity of agriculture. Because of these problems,
agriculture is in transition. It can not continue is emerging, which includes addressing the
problems that have been created by the post-WWII farming practices.It includes new
technologies that are nonpolluting, and working nature rather than trying to totally control the
agricultural environment. It is not a total return to organic farming, but it certainly is an
improvement over the agriculture of the last 40years.
The soil erosion problem has been addressed to a degree by conservation tillage.
Conservation tillage is defined as cultivation that leaves 30% of the soil surface covered by
organic residue after planting. Where wind erosion is a problem, 1.120 kg/ha (1,000 lbs/acre)
of flat, small grained residue per acre on the surface during the critical wind erosion seasons is
required. The conservation tillage program, which includes ridge-till, and much-till methods,
is designed to slow down soil erosion to acceptable levels of less than 22,450 kg/ha (5
tons/acre) per year on deep soils. The program is not without its problems. Farmers like this
program because it saves money on tractor fuel. All three methods require the use of
pesticides. The existing vegetation or plant residue left on the ground in the conservation
tillage system of farming increases the chances for crop diseases and insect infestations (figure
9.3). Increased use of pesticides to control these pets could cause greater environmental
degradation than was caused by the soil loss. The amount of pesticides and herbicides required
to control pets and weeds usually decreases with time, but this is not universally true.A return
to organic farming may be the answer to sustainable food production agriculture.
Pesticides
Two laws govern pesticide use in the United States, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
FIFRA was passed in 1947 and can be considered one of our first environmental laws. In its
original form, however, it was simply a licensing and registration law that required pesticide
products be registered before being sold. In 1972, principal amendments to FIFRA established
the “no unreasonable adverse effects” standard, the risk-benefit approach, and the task of
reevaluating all previously registered pesticides. Original estimates were that it may take 35-
40 years to completely reevaluate the more than 600 active ingredients in “old” pesticides.As
of fall 1993,the environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had completed a final safety
reassessment for only 31 of the 20,000 old pesticides, as ordered by Congress more than 20
years ago.At this rate of reevaluation, it will take hundreds of years to complete reevaluation.
The FFDCA governs pesticide residue levels in food and feed food crops marketed in the
United States. Before a pesticide can be registered under FIFRA for use on feed crops, the
EPA must set tolerance levels that specify and allowable upper limit or pesticide residue. The
food and Drug Ad-ministration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agricuture (USDA) are
responsible for enforcing pesticide tolerances set by the EPA and for taking necessary
regulatory action.
In 1962, Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, which changed forever the way people look at
pesticides.Since that time, scientific knowledge and technology have shown that many fears
about pesticides were well-founded. The following excerpts from Silent Spring eloquently
state the challenge of modern pesticides.
For the first time in the history of the world, every human beling is now subjected to
contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception until death. In the less than
two decedes of their use, the synthetic pesticides have been so thoroughly distributed
throughout the animate and inanimate world that they occur virtually everywhere. They have
been recovered from most of the major river systems and even from streams of ground water
flowing unseen through the earth. Residues of these chemicals linger in soil to which they may
have been applied a dozen years before. They have entered and lodged in the bodies of fish,
birds, reptiles, and domestic and wild animals so universally that scientists carrying on animal
experiments find it almost impossible to locate subjects free from such contamination. They
have been found in fish in remote mountain lakes, in earthworms burrowing in soil, in the eggs
of birds- and in man himself. For these chemicals are now stored in the bodies of the vast
majority of human beings, regardless of age. They occur in the mother’s milk, and probably in
the tissues of the unborn child.
All this has come about because of the sudden rise and prodigious growth of an industry
for the production of man-made or synthetic chemicals with insecticidal properties. This
industry is a child of the second World War. In the course of developing agents of chemical
warfare, some of the chemicals created in the laboratory were found to be lethal to insects. The
discovery did not come by chance: insects were widely used to test chemicals as agents of
death for man.
The result has been a seeming endless stream of synthetic insecticides. In beling man-
made- by ingenious laboratory manipulation of the molecules, substituting atorms, altering
their arrangement- they differ sharply from the simpler insecticides of prewar days. These
were derived from naturally occurring minerals and plant products-compounds of arsenic,
copper,lead, manganese,zinc,and other minerals, pyrethrum from the dried flowers of
chrysanthemums, nicotine sulphate from some of the relatives of tobaco, and rotenone from
legumious plants of the East Indies.
What sets the new synthetic insecticides apart is their enormous biological potency.They
have immense power not merely to poison but to enter into the most vital processes of the
body and change them in sinister and often deadly ways. Thus, as we shall see, they destroy
the very enzymes whose function is to protect the body from harm, they block oxidation
processes from which the body receives its energy, they prevent the normal functioning of
various organs, and they may initiate in certain cells the slow and irreversible change that
leads to malignancy.
 New and more deadly chemicals are added to the list each year and new uses are devised
so that contact with these materials has become practically worldwide. The production of
synthetic pesticides in the United States soared from 124,259,000 pounds in 1947 to
637,666,000 pounds in 1960- more than a fivefold increase. The wholesale value of these
products was well over a quarter of a billionn dollars. But in the plans and hopes of the
industry this enormous production is only a beginning.
A Who’s Who of pesticides is, therefore, of concern to us all. If we are going to live so
intimately with these chemicals- eating and drinking them, taking them into the very marrow
of our bones – we had better know something about their nature and their power.*
Rachel Carson was right. The 289.8 mkg (637.7 million lbs) of synthetic pesticides
produced in the United States in 1960 had climbed to over 500 mkg (1.1 billion lbs) in 1988,
with agricultural use accounting for 77% of this total.Farmers spent $4.6 billion on pesticides
in 1985, representing nearly 4% of their total farm production expenditures. More than 25,000
pesticide products, containing about 600 active ingredient, are registered by the EPA for use in
the United States.”The Who’s Who of pesticides is, therefore, of concern to us all”
Pesticides are believed to be absorbed by, and bound to, the soil particles until they
become degraded. Many pesticides have been detected in the groundwater of almost every
state.Some early pesticides like DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds were
found to persist almost indefinitely in the environment. They move up the food chain from
plant, to animal, to human, and cause adverse health effects.DDT was banned in the United
States in 1971 but can still be detected in living tissue.Home and garden use of pesticides
accounted for 14% of user expenditures in 1985. Pesticides are used in 75 million households
in the United States. Nine out of every ten American households use pesticides (figure 9.4),
and fewer than 50% read the labels for information regarding use. Nearly all Americans have
residues of the pesticides DDT, chlordane, heptachlor,aldrin, and dieldrin in their bodies. All
of these have been banned for sale in the United States. However, they have not been banned
from the international market and they can come back home as resigues on the fruit and
vegetables we import and eat.
Many of the pesticides introduced in the 1940s and 1950s are no longer commercially
availble.Some, such as DDT and chlordane, have been banned because they were found to
pose unacceptable health risks to humans. Some old insecticides are no longer effective
because the pets have developed an immunity or resistance to the chemical. Nearly 275 weeds
and more than 500 insects are resistant to at least one pesticide. Farmers are losing more crops
in the 1990s to pets than they did in 1940s. Patents have expired on some pesticides and with
the new regulations of the FIFRA for a complete data base for continued registration of each
chemical, it is not economically feasible to reapply for registration because of the extensive
testing required. What will replace these didappearing chemicals to control pests that are less
environmentally damaging?
Alternative Pest Controls
New pesticides are introduced into the market at the rate of about 15 per year.A new
pesticide is thoroughly tested and a complete data base showing that the chemical poses “no
unreasonable risk” to humans or the environment is required for registration.Many of these
new pesticides are target specific; that is, they kill only what they are targeted to kill and
nothing else. New pesticides tend to be less acutely hazardous then older ones but potential
chronic toxiciy remains a very real problem, as do delayed effects, such as cancer.
As the cost of registering new pesticide chemicals increases, alternative pest control
methods with fewer environmental side effects are being developed. Microbiologists and
biochemists are investigating alternative for pest control. To control yellow jackets, sythetic
sex attractants have been developed that lure male insects into traps. These chemicals pose
almost no hazard to people, but are target specific and work only on a relatively small insect
popularion. Insect pathogens found in nature are being used to infect and kill susceptible
insects. Limited capability of each pathogen restricts effectiveness.
Genetically engineered microbes are made by inserting genes with a desired trait into a
harmless indigenous microbe. These harmless microbe, carrying the inserted pathogencity, are
no longer harmless to the target insect. Another example of genetic engineering that has been
approved for field testing but not registered by the EPA is a microbe designed to prevent frost
damage in strawberries. In 1994 a new class of genes was discovered that can recognize a
diverse group of pathogens. The board resistance within a single family of genes makes them
easier to transfer into other plants. That means scientists could, with just a little genetic
engineering, protect any plant from bacterial, viral, and fungal infections in one manipulation.
Crushed marigolds and chrysanthemums produce a pyrethrin (organic chemaical) that
repels and/or kills insects. This pyrethrin is a safe but expensive insecticide. Biochemists are
developing synthetic pyrethroids that are replacing some old broad-spectrum insecticides.
Plants usually don’t develop resistance to herbicides the way insects so to
insecticides.However,the use of herbicides will favor the development of pesticide-degrading
soil microbes, which could decrease the effectiveness of the herbicide. Genetic engineering
can insert genes for pesticide resistance in a desired crop, causing this crop to be unaffected by
the presence of the herbicide. Research is also working in insect control programs where a
harmless insects is imported to control a pest insect. Ladybugs have been used for aphid
control and are advertised for sale in many organic gardening and farming magazines. Wasps
to control whiteflies is another example of an insect control that works well.
Agricultural Chemicals in Groundwater Strategy
The goal of the EPA’ s Agricultural Chemicals in Groundwater Strategy is to help
coordinate efforts between the EPA and the states to minimize further damage by pesticides to
groundwater quality. Much evidence indicates that groundwater contamination is increasing.
Twenty-six states have reported the presence in wells of one or more of 19 different pesticides
that are commonly used as agricultural chemicals. The EPA is currently assessing new data
that show that the number od states affected, and the number of chemicals detected, are both
increasing (figure 9.5)
The proposed strategy required active participation by each state. Thus, the states have an
opportunity to take the lead role in controlling agricultural pesticides within their borders. The
EPA will establish the minimum acceptable levels of groundwater contamination, according to
the provisions of maximum contaminant levels established under the Safe Drinking Water Act
of 1974. The states must submit their plans to the EPA for approval. If the EPA determines
that a state’s plan is effective, then certain pesticides can be used in that state for agricultural
purposes. If a state chooses not to take the lead role and does not submit a plan, then the EPA
will develop a plan that may have statewide or countrywide prohibitions, as well as other
limitations on the uses of specific pesticides.
The EPA’s groundwater strategy calls for preventive measures that all states must
implement on a nationwide basis. One of these is the requirement that certain pesticides may
be applied only by certifiled applicatiors. The EPA, in cooperation with the USDA and the
individual states, is working on a certification training program.Future pesticide registration
under FIFRA will be influenced by the patterns of pesticides observed in the nation’s
groundwater supplies as the strategy is implemented.
 Intergrated Pest Management (IPM)
An agroecosystem is a human-altered, human-managed agricultural system. Plant and
animal populations are managed to provide food essential to sustenance. A program, focused
on pest control within the agroecosystem, is called Intergrated Pest Management (IPM).
This program is a system approach that applies current technology to the control and
containment of pest. An on-going research program to understand the biological properties of
the agroecosystem provides the data base for the IPM. Experience and prediction on the costs
of inputs and expected results form the basis for the economic model. The social aspects of the
technology are a third parameter of the system. The IPM program is a product of the inputs
from the biological, economic, and sociological implications of the system to control pests
within the cost structure of the agricultural community.
The use of crop varieties resistant to diseases or insects will help limit the need for
pesticides. More precise timing of planting, cultivating, and harvesting can also prevent pest
damage. But pesticides are an intergral part of nearly all IPM programs. IPM programs are
designed to choose the right pesticide based on its impact on the total agroecosystem, not just
on the basis of cost. The program ensures that the pesticide will be applied at the right time
and in the right amounts for control of the target pest with minimal adverse effects on the
agroecosystem and the environment.
Farming without Chemicals
The organic farmer is the best friend soil conservation has ever had. Dick and Sharon
Thompson of Boone, Iowa, stopped using chemicals on their farm in 1976. They changed to a
balanced rotational system of oats/legumes –corn/soybean – rest. Thompson’s rotation is
effective because legumes are growing five out of every seven years. Legumes are important
because they fix (add) nitrogen to the soil and, as a soil cover, they minimize soil erosion.
Despite the sudden withdrawal from chemicals, yields were relatively high for oats (85
bu/acre), soybeans (40 to 45 bu/acre), abd corn (100 to 125 bu/acre).These yields compare
favorably with chemically intensive agricultural yields. The Thonpsons explain that soil
becteria get “lazy” if they are spoon-fed nutrients all the time, and it sometimes takes a while
to get them active again. They urge other farmers to experiment on their own farms by
removing one field at a time from chemicals.
A good rotation for cash-cropping farmers is the seven-year grain rotation. The seven-year
rotation with corn,soybean, and oats/legumes planted in eight-row strips on permanent ridges
is the preferred combination (figure 9.6). A mixture of hairy vetch (legumes), oats, and grain
rye is seeded over the corn in late August. The hairy vetch furnishes nitrogen to the system in
each of the seven years of rotation. The seventh-year rest allows two or three full growth
cycles of the vetch, which is returned to the soil by cultivation.No additional nitrogen fertilizer
is needed to sustain the system.
Figure 9.7 shows the seven-year cash grain rotation program followed by the Thompsons.
It showes what crops are in each strip each year. This stripping rotational system has a number
of advantages:
1. The ridge-till cultivation technique reduces the cost of tillage operations because only
summer cultivation during the four-row crop years will be needed.
2. Earthworm numbers increase, because of fall cover crops and residues lelf on the surface.
3. The continuous ground cover improves precipitation infiltration and controls soil erosion.
4. The oats will be no-till drilled into soybean ridges.
The soybeans will be ridge-strip tilled into the previous year’s corn ridge and the corn will
be ridge-strip tilled in the dead legume mulch lelf on the ridges. The soybeans are planted on
the sunny south side of the corn strip and the oats, which will use the shade of the corn strip to
an advantage, are on the north side whenever possible. Adding chicken manure before the
third-year corn can increase yield by 8.1 bu/ha to 50.6 bu/ha (20 bu/acre to 125 bu/acre)
The Thompsons can not follow the standard no-till method of farming, because they
won’t use herbicides, except as a last resort. Instead they use ridge-tillage, which uses
cultivation for weed control (figures 9.8A through D). Weed, especially legunes, that come
back from the previous year’s hay crop are treated as an asset because they add nitrogen to the
soil. A savings of about $90 per arce (0.4 hectares) is realized by not using commercial
fertilizers or herbicides.
The Thompsons are not the only ones farming chemical-free. The USDA reports that at
least 30,000 of the nation’s 2,100,000 farmers (1.5%) use no chemicals at all. Organic farming
is a different way of thinking for people in the Western world. It makes the farmer a part of the
land community, a part of the biotic pyramid. Alternative farming and low-input farming are
the new names for an agriculture that is returning to the basics of an agroecosystem approach
(table 9.1). The laws of the biosphere apply and govern the system.The USDA has established
a $4 million research program to look at all aspects of low-input farming.The bottom line is to
let nature, the only sustainable agriculture, do its part in producing food.
Riparian Buffer Strips
The majority of farmers in the United States continue to use pesticides and fertilizers in
their fields. How can we protect our streams and our groundwater from these chemicals?
Research at Iowa State University (ISU) by Dick Schultz, an agroforester, and his colleagues
on Bear Creek is producing some answers.The best management practice (BMP) for reducing
agricultural impacts on surface water and groundwater is the restoration of riparian buffer
strips that can be designed to function similarly to natural riparian communities that were
removed by farmers to gain additional crop acreage.
Riparian buffer strips are combinations of trees, shrubs, and grasses that have been
developed to contribute to sustainable agriculture by functioning effectively as nutrient and
sediment sinks for nonpoint source (NPS) pollutants.Cornbining trees, shrubs,and native
prairie grasses increases biodiversity, thus improving wildlife habitants and aesthetics.
The Bear Creek Watershed Project is located in north central Iowa and Bear Creek and its
tributaries drain 7,160 hectares (17,180 acres). The gently rolling to level topography was
originally long-grass prairie with riparian forests along reaches of the creek. The glacial till
and alluvium and colluvium derived from the till provide the parent material for the well-
drained to poorly drained soils of the watershed.About 85% of the watershed is occupied by
row crop agriculture of corn and soybeans.
The Iowa State Agroforestry Research Team (IStART), financed by a grant from the
Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, has developed multiple benefits from Constructed
Multispecies Riparian Buffer Strips (CMRBS) program for reducing NPS pollution in the
Mid-west. The IStART’s recommended buffer strip design is illustrated in Figure 9.9A. The
CMRBS should be 20 m (66ft) wide on each side of the stream and follow the curvature
continously.
Starting at the stream, five row of tree, two rows of shrubd, and a 7 m wide (24fit) band
of switchgrass are recoomended. Other native permanent grasses such as Indian grass or big
bluestem could be mixed with the switchgrass as long as the grass dominates the site.
If a drainage tile runs through the filter strip, tree roots from water-seeking tree species
such as cottonwood hybrids, silver maple, and willow are likely to plug these tiles, especially
if the tiles are clay or perforated PVC pipe. Alternatively, a strip of grass (or even shrubs)
might be used in the vicinity of the tile. This grass strip should be 4.5 – 6 m (15-20ft) wide and
centered over the tile (figure 9.9D)
Numerous tree combinations can be planted in the five rows of trees.The fastest –
growing trees such as willow, popar hybrids, and/or silver maple should occupy the first three
rows closests to the streambank. Any of these three species could be planted immediately
adjacent to the stream. But where steep, potentially eroding streambanks are a problem,
willow, because of its root system and its ability to root sprout, would be the best choice.
These species would become established quickly and begin to provide filtering and stabilizing
effects within the first three years (figure 9.9B & C).
Figure 9.10A shows a design for a reach of a stream that runs primary east and west.
Because the sun travels through the southern sky, it is important not to shade the slower -
growing trees with faster-growers, and taller trees should be on the north side of the plantings.
On the south side of the stream, it is recommended to plant ash (Fraxinus), oak (Quercus), or
black walnut (Juglans nigra) on the outside rows because of shade from taller and faster-
growing trees. Because green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) grows more slowly than either
poplar (Populus) hybrids, willow (Salix), or silver maple (Acer saccharinum), it is not part of
the planting on the north side of the stream (figure 9.10B & C)
The two rows of shrubs could be any combination of shrubs.Past experience dictates
planting at least two different species of shrubs for diversity and to reduce the risk of losing all
the shrubs to a pest or drought. Ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius), choke cherry (Prunus
virginiana), nannyberry (Viburnum lentago), and red osier dogwood (Cornus florida) are well
suited to there buffer strips.
Spacing between trees in the rows is 1,2m (4ft) and between shrubs in the rows is 1m
(~3ft).A 20 m width by 201m length is 0.4ha (1 acre is 66ft wide by 66o ft long). If there are
five rows 201m long, with a spacing of 1.2m between trees, there would be 825 trees per 0.4ha
(four rows of trees would need ~660 trees).For two rows of shrubs at 0.9m between shrubs,
there would be an additional 440 plants for a total of 1.265 woody plants (1.100 for the tour-
row design) per 0.4ha or 201m of length. Along 1,600m of strema, a 20m buffer strips on one
side would total 3.2ha (along one mile of stream, 66ft wide on only one side would total an 8-
acre buffer strip).If that strip were on both sides of the stream there would be a total of 6.4ha
(16 acre) in buffer strip.
For a cost of $350 to $400 per acre (0.405ha) to establish the CMRBS system and an
annual maintenance cost of about $20 per cent, the following benefits can be derived:
Restore soil quality
Root biomass improves soil stability
Provides friction to reduce velocity of surface runoff and flood flows
Reduces NPS pollution by cycling and storing chemicals and sediment
Increases biodiversity and improvement of wildlife habitat
Sequesters carbon from the atmosphere
Provides alternative economic return to landowner (biomass for energy)
The Food Security Act
The food security act is better known as the 1985 Farm Bill.Several provisions in this law
are designd to make the USDA farm programs more consistent with conservation
programs.The new provisions encourage the reduced production of surplus crop commodities.
The conservation Resever, Conservation Compliance, Sodbuster, and Swampbuster programs
were all initiated by the 1985 Farm Bill. Conservationists, environmentalists, and farmers are
all enthusiastic about the prospects for the new farm programs.
 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is designed to remove highly erodible land
from cultivation. The Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) will share
up to half the cost of establishing permanent grasses, legumes, trees, windbreaks, or wildlife
plantings on highly erodible highly erodible cropland. Under ten-year contracts, ASCS will
make annual payments to farmers as long as the terms and conditions of the contract are met.
The goal of this program is to retire 18.2 million hectares (45 million acres) of highly erodible
cropland and keep it out of production for 10 years. By 1994, 14.7 million hectares (36,4
million acres) had been retired as CRP lands at a cost of $19.5 billion in total payments to
landowners. Iowa, Texas, Kansas, North dakota, and Missouri rank one through five in
number of acres retired. The 14.6 million hectares (36 million acres) retired during the first 10
years of CRP program have cut cropland erosion by an estimated 635 million metric tons
(7000 million tons) per year, reduced sediment yeild to streams by 182 million metric tons
(200 million tons) per year, reduced pesticide use 30 million kg (65 million lbs), and fertilizer
use by 1.3 million metric tons (1.4 million tons).Farmers and landowners face a difficult
decision in 1996 when one – third of CRP contracts expire, and again when the remaining
contracts expire by 2000. The 1995 farm Bill could extend the program
Conservation Compliance
The Conservation Compliance provision of the 1985 farm Bill applies when a farmer
continues to plant annnually tilled crops on highly erodible fields. If a famer continues to plant
tilled crops on highly erodible land (as defined by the ASCS), he must have an approved
conservation plan that he is actively applying to those fields by January, 1990, or he is no
longer eligible for certain USDA program benefits (table 9.2). A farmer would lose benefits
from any of the programs listed in Table 9.2 that he is receiving at the time he is charged with
noncompliance. The plan must be totally implemented by January 1, 1995. a conservation
tillage or no-till cultivation program on the highly erodible land, in most cases, is an
acceptable plan.By 1993, farmers had prepared 1.3 million conservation plans for 56.7 million
hectares (140 million acres), which represent 98% of the nation’s most erodible cropland.
Sodbuster
The Sodbuster provision of the 1985 Farm Bill applies to farmer that plant annually tilled
crops on highly erodible land not use for crop production during the period 1981 – 85. In other
words, the sod can’t be busted (plowed) on land that has set idle for the first five years of the
1980s. If a farmer plows highly erodible fields, the plowing must be according to a locally
approved conservation district plan or the farmer will lose all USDA program benefits listed in
Table 9.2 that he or she is receiving when charged with the violation
Swampbuster
The Swampbuster program is designed to keep wetlands wet. If a farmer converts a
naturally occurring wetland to cropland after December 23, 1985 (the date the farmer bill was
signed), he or she will lose all USDA farm program benefits that are being received when
charged with the violation (table 9.2). As of April 15, 1989, 427 cases were investigated for
possible violations of Swampbuster is that the local Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS) is in charge of enforcement. The local ASCS boards are made
up of local farmers and business people and they are reluctant to penalize their own neighbors
with violations. In spite of its short-comings, the Swampbuster provision has secured 50,625
hectares (125,000 acres) of wetland across the country, under perpetual easements, at a cost of
$ 113 million.
 Drought of 1988
Conservation Reserve Program lands are called CPR lands. Landowners are paid an
average of about $45 per acre (0.4 hectares) per year to idle their land and are given extra
federal money to help establish vegetative cover. In some states, the state wildlife or
conservation agency also provides assistance to farmers for planting cover on CRP lands. The
Missouri Department of Conservation, for example, has given landowners more than $1
million to help with plantings.
In 1986, the first lands were accepted into the CRP program. In 1988, a drought occurred
in North America, and farmers started complaining about the hay going to waste on their CRP
lands. The USDA, in response to pressures from midwestern congressmen, opened up CRP
lands nationwide to mowing in the middle of nesting seasons for waterfowl and upland birds
(figure 9.11). Landowners were required to leave 10% of the vegetable uncut in alternating
strips, and could not cut lower than three inches (7.6 cm) from the ground. An estimated five
million acres of CRP lands mowed. Wildlife lost 90% of its habitat. The public paid the farmer
75% of his subsidy for 1988. He also harvested 90% of the hay crop that the taxpayer paid to
have put in wildlife cover. Since much of the cover was not well established, it was especially
vulnerable to cutting because of the drought. Much of it has since been replanted. The
Conservation Reserve Program is an excellent example of an outstanding consevation –
agriculture management program, but it can not work if the USDA undermines the program.
Climatically a normal drought year, 1988 cost the American taxpayer $3.9 billion for fam
drought relief, not to mention the wildlife habitat, nests, and young birds lost because of
haying.
1990 and 1995 farm Bills
Amendments to the Food Security Act in 1990 have successfully closed some of the
loopholes in the 1985 version of the Farm bill, and additional conservation provisions have
been added.CRP land limits have been expanded from 18 million hectares (45 million acres)
to 26 million hectares (65 million acres). Multiple conservation purposes, such as improved
water quality and restoring wetlands, should make the CRP program more cost effective.
Emergency haying during droughts is not allowed on CRP lands before July 15, so that ground
– nesting birds are not affected by the mowing. The 1995 Farm Bill, which became law in
April, 1996, continues most of these conservation farm programs through the year 2000. A
major change in farm policy was also enacted in 1996. All crop subsides, which were 75% of
farm program spending, will be phased out over the next seven years. It is hoped that this will
reduce surpluses and stabilize markets.
Ten years of CRP
The CRP Program has as its primary purposes to increase soil conservation and
reducecrop surpluses. But of all the program of the 1985 Farm Bill, it has been the most
successful because of its benefits to birds, animal, and aqutic life. About 1 million additional
migratory waterfowl can be produced annually in the prairies ecoregion of the central flyways
breeding ground on CRP lands where two thirds of all CRP lands are found.
The tallgrass prairie is the most endangered ecosystem in the United States because more
than 95% of this ecoregion has been converted to agriculture in this century. Conservation
reserve lands tend to be larger tracts. This spreads the nests of ground- nesting birds over a
larger territory and predators have a more difficult time locating nests. Nesting success rates
are up nearly 30% on larger CRP tracts. A nesting success rate above 15% is required to
increase waterfowl populations. Pheasant populations have also benefited from CRP, with
numbers of birds at record highs in South Dakota, Iowa, and Kansas. Prairie chickens in
Colorado, grouse in Idaho, and Turkeys in Missouri have increased populations, mirroring the
expansion of CRP lands (figure 9.12)
Should the CRP program be continued? It costs the federal government $1.8 billion per
year to pay the nearly 400,000 farmers enrolled in the CRP program to leave their lands idle.
But if the CRP lands were in crop prodution, the America taxpayer would be paying these
same farmers $2 billion per year in commodity subsidy payments. This does not take into
account the environmental savings of improved water quality, reduced soil erosion, and
additional recreation opportunities. Hunting, alone, on CRP lands is estimated to have
generated nearly $5 billion in economic benefits nationwide since the inception of the
program.The 1995 reauthorization of the farm bill should continue the Conservation Title
programs that have benefited the environment in many ways beyond the original, stated
purpose.
Climate as a Control in Agriculture
When insects get too numerous, farmers spray them with an insecticide.When weeds get
too thick, they spray then with a herbicide.What happens if it doesn’t rain? Do a rain dance?
Pray? Wait until next year? The 100-year climatic record for the Great Plains contains periods
of recurring drought on roughly a 22-year cycle. Drought occurred in 1980 and 1910. The dust
bowl days lasted from 1927 until 1932. Drought hit again in the 1950s, the 1970s, and the late
1980s. Color Plate 14 illustrates the vegetative changes that occurred in and around Old Wives
Lake in Canada in response to the drought of 1988.The healthy vegetation on June 1, 1986, is
indicated by the deep red colors on this scene, whereas the maroon colors on the May 21,
1988, scene are indicative of the dry, dead vegetation. Notice also that the lake, with its
waterfowl nesting habitat, is all but dry and gone in 1988.Drought is usually accompanied by
higher than normal temperatures and increased wind velocities. These climatic conditions are
a predictable but unwelcome part of the abiotic physical variables for the Great Plains
region.Recurring floods and drought in 20- year cycles is the rule rather than the exception
(Color Plate 2)
Agriculture must build crop failure caused by climate into its management plants.The
farmer has no control over climate although he has had attempted a limited degree of control
with irrigation.But this has had serious environmental remifications because the nation will
run out of water for agricultural irrigation. The Ogllala Aquifer, where the Great Plains
farmers get their water, is expected to be depleted by the year 2025 if the present rate of use
continues. A system of agricultural surplus, grown during the wet years, will have to provide
the food for the dry years. The wet years will return as predictably as the dry years. Good
resource management requires that restrictions created by the physical variables, especially
climate, be built into the management program.
Soil Fertility
Gene Poirot, in his book Our Margin of Life (1978), wrote that the only sustainable
agriculture (i.e., our margin of life) was to give to the soil those things removed by cultivation
and harvesting. He proposed a National Farm Program in the 1970s that contained a lot of the
same conservation – agriculture attributes of the present CRP program. He proposed that the
federal government pay farmers $25 per acre (0.4 hectare) to plant clover and plow it under.
At the time it would have cost the farmer $60 to $70 per acre to add lime and plant the clover.
After the legume was plowed under, the land would contain $100 per acre (0.4 hectare) of
increased fertility. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash would have been to the soil, as well as
organic matter that would have increased the water-holding capacity of the soil.The land
would have been taken out of crop production, reducing grain surpluses and the cost of storing
these surpluses. Gene Poirot was a man whose ideas about agriculture was 20 years ahead of
the nation’s practices.
Soil fertility is the backbone of sustainable agriculture.The soil must have the proper pH
and adequate amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium as major nutrient suplies.
Organic matter content is also important for tilth and adequate water-holding capacity. Soil
fertility can be maintained in an agroecosystem naturally by crop selection and rotation, or
artificially by adding fertilizers. Figure 9.13 illustrates the law of fertility for an
agroecosystem.
Nitrogen
Nitrogen is a major plant nutrient responsible for leaf growth and green leaves. Yellow
leaves and stunted growth are signs of nitrogen deficiency. Too little nitrogen renders crops
less resistant. Resistant to disease.Nitrogen content can be increased in the soil naturally by
planting legumes that fix atmospheric nitrogen in the soil.Plowing under a foliage crop (green
manure) will also increase the nitrogen content of the soil. Artificial nitrogen, produced by the
Haber process, combines nitrogen and hydrogen under pressure in the presence of a catalyst,
to form amminia. Nitrogen fertilizers used for agricultural purposes can be in the form of
ammonia or ammonium salts, or a urea and nitrates form. Natural sources of nitrogen that can
be added to the soil as fertilizer include bloodmeal, guano, animal tankage, cottonseed meal,
fish scraps, miloirganite (activated sludge), bone meal, and nut shells.
Phosphorus
Phosphorus is the second major plant nutrient in the fertilizer formula.It is important for
the development of a strong root system and good growth. Phosphorus hastens maturity and
increases seed yield and fruit development. It also increases resistance to winter kill and
disease. Phosphorus fertilizer is usually applied as phosphoric acid or superphosphate. These
products are manufactured from phosphate rock, which is in short supply in the world market.
Florida, the Carolinas, and the Phosphoria deposits in the west have the reserves of phosphate
rock used for North American fertilizers (see Figure 14.18).Natural sources of phosphorus
include bone meal, animal tankage, dried fish scrap, basic slag, raw sugar wastes, incinerator
ash, milorganite, and cottonseed meal.
Potassium
Potassium (potash) is the third major plant nutrient. Canada has the biggest evaporite salt
reserves, which are the potash or Potassium fertilizer source (see figure 14.18). Potassium
helps to carry carbonhydrates through the plant to form strong and help fight disease. Potash
improves quality in fruit and provides starches, sugars, and oils to the plant. It also promotes
root system strength and decreases the need for water. Corn ears may fail to fill out completely
when Potassium is low. Water – soluble Potassium is derived from Potassium rocks such as
granite. Natural sources of Potassium include flyash, wood ashes, seaweed, dried fish scraps,
and green sand (glauconite)
The formula on most bags of commercial fertilizer includes three numbers such as 10-20-
10.These three numbers are the percent nitrogen (N), the percent available Phosphorus (P2O5)
(i.e., oxide basis in one molar ammonium citrate solution at pH7), and percent soluble
Potassium (K2O) (i.e., soluble in water), in that oder, contained in what is called a balanced
fertilizer.Nitrogen is reported as percent N irrespective of form or solubility. The phosphorus
and Potassium are reported as the oxide equivalents. Total nutrient use was 7% higher in 1994
than in 1993, with nitrogen use up 11% and phosphate and potash use up about 2% each. The
major factor was increased cornacreage, which uses 40% to 45% of all fertilizer.This
continues an upward trend in nitrogen use for the past 30 years (figure 9.14)
 Nitrogen use per acre (0.405 ha) averaged higher on corn, cotton, soybeans, and wheat,
but lower on fall potatoes.Spring before planting is the most common time to apply fertilizer
to corn and soybeans; after planting for up-land cotton, durum and spring wheat, and fall
potatoes; and fall before planting for winter wheat (figure 9.14)
Remember that the seven-year rotation used by the Thompsons of oats/legume and rest
requires no fertilizers. Gene Poirot’s method of planting clover and plowing it under is the
same as adding 3-1-2 fertilizer each time you turn the green crop under. If the object of
agricultural man – management is to buil a sustainable agriculture and maintain soil
fertilizer,then crop-rotation methods that return to the soil what is removed by the cash crops
is the only long-term solution.
Total Resource Management in Agriculture
Complete planning is the key to successful total resource total resource
management.Designing a total resource mangement plan requires that one consider all of the
resources on the farm. Inventory the farm by making a map of every field, pasture, pond,
stream, and woodlot. Then consider the soil conservation, water quality, wildlife habitat, and
energy conservation practices that would contribute to an environmentally and economically
sustainable farm. Some of the most environmentally friendly and profitable practices like soil
nutrient management or pest control take little or no financial investment and yeild big returns
in improved water quality.
Table 9.3 is a total resource management checklist help start a plan. State and federal
agencies such as the ASCS, NRCS, or State Conservation Service departments will assist with
planning and implementing a total resource management system. Make use of the technical
experts available for farm use a booklet of 30 condervation and environmental choices. Table
9.4 is a list of those choices.Figure 9.15 illustrates one of these conservation choices; the
examples of good farm management practices discussed in this chapter are other examples.
Summary
Agricultural management programs designed to make food production sustainable are
available to the north American farmer. Crop-rotation systems that follow the prescription of
the law of fertility are maintaining soil fertility, decreasing fertilizer and pesticide use, and
reducing soil erosion.Government programs such as the CRP and Swampbuster provisions of
the Farm Bill are also improving water quality and wildlife habitat on the farm.Reliance on
pesticides and fertilizers to increase farm product output is decresing. Farming in tune with the
laws of the biophere is the only sustainable agricultural management method that will provide
food and at the same time protect the environment into the 21st century.