Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:33:58.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrating crop and livestock production in Inland Northwest farming systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Linda H. Hardesty  and
James A. Tiedeman
Linda H. Hardesty
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Forest, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6410
James A. Tiedeman
Affiliation:
Associate Scientist, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6410
Get access

Abstract

The demand for more ecologically and economically sustainable agriculture arises because we currently integrate products economically in a fashion that distorts ecologica I relationships. Earfy farms were ecologically integrated through feeding of forage crops and crop residues to livestock, with livestock contributing draft power and manure for crops. Today we have almost entirely uncoupled plant and animal production, eliminating the contribution that each can make to the productivity of the other. Barriers to integrating farming systems include the large volume of information needed for sophisticated production systems and the lack of infrastructure. Also, many chemicals used on crops have not been evaluated for their safety in food animals. Winter feeding and calving may conflict with crop production cycles; balancing year-round forage supplies is another obstacle. Opportunities include using the Conservation Reserve Program to shift land to livestock production. Domestic demand for meat is changing, and range livestock production is seen by some people as more humane than confinement. Animals fed less grain may be more acceptable in some markets. As agriculture responds to changes in society, ecologica I integration may become more compatible with economic integration.

Keywords

rangedrylandecological integrationeconomic integration
Type
Selected Papers from the U.S.-Middle East Conference on Sustainable Dryland Agriculture
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 11 , Issue 2-3 , September 1996 , pp. 121 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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.Banner, R. 1993. Profile of animals rights activists. Inland Farmer-Stockman. Feb. 11:45.Google Scholar
2.Edwards, C.A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R.H., and House, G. (eds). 1990. Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Soil and Water Conservation Soc., Ankeny, Iowa.Google Scholar
3.Finley, E., and Price, R.. 1994. International Agriculture. Delmar Publishers, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
4.Folwell, R.J., Mittelhammer, R.C., and Boettcher, N.. 1991. The structure of the Pacific Northwest beef cattle industry. EB 1594. Washington State Univ. Cooperative Extension, Pullman.Google Scholar
5.Franklin, J.F., and Dyrness, C.T.. 1988. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.Google Scholar
6.Fritz, M. 1994. Sheep industry limping badly. Capitol Press. May 20:18.Google Scholar
7.Halloin, L. 1990. Plantation Grazing: A Feasibility Review. Dept. of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington.Google Scholar
8.Hardesty, L.H., and Howell, W.E. 1993. Three approaches to managing browsing in silvopastoral systems. Abstracts. 3rd Conference on Agroforestry in North America, Ames, Iowa. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.Google Scholar
9.Hardesty, L.H., Lawrence, J.H., Gill, S.J., and Chapman, R.C.. 1993. Nonindustrial private forest landowners' perceptions of forest grazing in Washington State. J. Range Management 46:49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Harrima, P. 1993. Sheep: Woolly weed control? Moscow-Pullman Daily News. Sept. 13:8A.Google Scholar
11.Jacobs, L. 1991. Waste of the West: Public Lands Ranching. Lynn Jacobs, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
12.Lawrence, J.H., and Hardesty, L.H.. 1992. Mapping the territory: Agroforestry awareness among Washington State land managers. Agroforestry Systems 19:37–55.Google Scholar
13.Lawrence, J.H., Hardesty, L.H., Chapman, R.C., and Gill, S.J.. 1992. Agroforestry practices of Washington State nonindustrial private forest land owners. Agroforestry Systems 19:27–36.Google Scholar
14.Meister, K. 1993. The Beef Controversy. American Council on Science and Health, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
15.Meyers, N. 1985. The Primary Source. W.W. Norton and Company, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
16.National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. Board on Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
17.Petersen, K.C. 1987. Company Town. Washington State Univ. Press, Pullman.Google Scholar
18.Rifkin, J. 1992. Beyond Beef. Penguin Books, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
19.Smith, C. 1993. SCS evaluates CRP grazing. Inland Farmer-Stockman. Feb. 11:6–9.Google Scholar
20.U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1979. Palouse Cooperative River Basin Study. Soil Conservation Service, Forest Service and Economics, Statistics and Cooperatives Service, Spokane, Washington.Google Scholar
21.U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1989. The Second RCA Appraisal. Misc. Pub. 1482, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
22.Washington Agriculture Statistics Service. 1993. Washington Agricultural County Data. Olympia, Washington.Google Scholar