Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T01:58:54.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Innovative approaches for integrated research and educational programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

David F. Bezdicek  and
Colette DePhelps
David F. Bezdicek
Affiliation:
Director of the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources and Professor of Soil Science, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
Colette DePhelps
Affiliation:
Outreach Coordinator, Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
Get access

Abstract

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.

Keywords

sustainable agricultureparticipatory approachesintegrated systemsinterdisciplinary 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. 3 - 8
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.Batie, S.S., and Swinton, S. M.. 1994. Institutional issues and strategies for sustainable agriculture: View from within the land-grant university. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 9:23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Beus, C.E., and Dunlap, R. E.. 1990. Conventional verses alternative agriculture: The paradigmatic roots of the debate. Rural Sociology 55:590–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Biggs, S.D. 1989. Resource-poor farmer participation in research: A synthesis of experiences from nine national agricultural research systems. International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague, Netherlands.Google Scholar
4.DePhelps, C. 1993. Agriculture/Estuary Natural Resource and Water Quality Issues: Models for Research and Education. Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Dept. of Ecology, State of Washington, Olympia.Google Scholar
5.DePhelps, C., and Butler, L. M.. 1992. Facilitator's Guide to Involving the Public in Applied Agricultural Research: Planning and Coalition Building. Washington State Univ. Cooperative Extension, Puyallup.Google Scholar
6.Francis, C., and King, J.. 1994. Will there be people in sustainable ecosystems? Designing an educational mosaic for the 22nd century. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 9:16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Lev, L.S., McGrath, D., Murray, H., and Williams, R. D.. 1993. Organizing and conducting farmer-scientist focus sessions. J. Natural Resource and Life Science Education 22(2):148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Liebhardt, W.C., Andrews, R. W., Culik, M. N., Harwood, R. R., Janke, R. R., Radke, J. K., and Rieger-Schwartz, S.L.. 1989. Crop production during conversion from conventional to low-input methods. Agronomy J. 81:150–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Lockeretz, W. 1994. What non-land grant researchers can contribute to agricultural sustainability. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 9:28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Luna, J., Allen, V., Fontenot, J., Daniels, L., Vaughan, D., Hagood, S., Taylor, D., and Laub, C.. 1994. Whole farm systems research: An integrated crop and livestock systems comparison study. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 9:57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Merrigan, K. 1993. A time for change: Research and extension in the new administration. In The Future of Agriculture Research and Extension: Policy Perspectives. Report of the Rural Policy Symposium, March 4, 1993. The Rural Policy Research Institute, Univ. of Arkansas, Iowa State Univ., Univ. of Missouri-Columbia, and Univ. of Nebraska.Google Scholar
12.Miller, R.H. 1990. Learning from each other: A look at how we do research. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 5:151–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Murray, H., and Butler, L. M.. 1994. Whole farm case studies and focus groups: Participatory strategies for agricultural research and education programs. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 9:38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. Board on Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
15.Reganold, J.P., Palmer, A. S., Lockhart, J. C., and Macgregor, A. N.. 1993. Soil quality and financial performance of biodynamic and conventional farms in New Zealand. Science 260:344–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Rosmann, R. L. 1994. Farmer initiated on-farm research. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 9:34–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Schauer, A. (ed). 1992. The 1992 Thompson On-farm Research. Rodale Press, Emmaus, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
18.Stanford, M.S., Crookston, R. K., Davis, D. W., and Simmons, S. R.. 1992. Decision Cases for Agriculture. Coll. of Agric., Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul.Google Scholar
19.Stauber, K.N. 1993. Presentation to the meeting of the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy, June 16, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
20.Stauber, K.N. 1994. The futures of agriculture. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 9:9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Temple, S., Friedman, D., Somasco, O., Ferris, H., Scow, K., and Klonsky, K.. 1994. An interdisciplinary, experiment station-based participatory comparison of alternative crop management systems for California's Sacramento Valley. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 9:64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Thompson, R., and Thompson, S.. 1990. The on-farm research program of Practical Farmers of Iowa. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 5:163–167.Google Scholar
23.Thornley, K., 1990. Involving farmers in agricultural research: A farmer's perspective. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 5:174–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Workneh, F., van Bruggen, A.H.C., Drinkwater, L. E., and Shennan, C.. 1993. Variables associated with corky root and Phytophthora root rot of tomatoes in organic and conventional farms. Phytopathology 83(5):581–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Wuest, S., Miller, B., Veseth, R., Guy, S., Wysocki, D., and Karow, R.. 1994. 1993 Pacific Northwest on-farm test results. Crop and Soil Sci. Tech. Rep. 94–1. Washington State Univ. Cooperative Extension, Pullman.Google Scholar
26.Young, F., Ogg, A. G. Jr., and Papendick, R. I.. 1994. Case studies of integrated/whole farm system designs: Field-scale replicated IPM trials. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 9:52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar