Living mulch is a cover crop which is intercropped with a cash crop to protect against soil erosion and structural deterioration without taking land out of production. To avoid interference which reduces cash crop yield, the mulch requires management techniques which minimize resource utilization during the critical period of crop development without killing the mulch outright. The experiments reported here examine non-chemical management innovations in a sweet corn-white clover intercrop system which allow for clover regrowth and also contribute to the N requirement of the corn. In 1986 clover was suppressed by mowing or partial rototilling. Yields of corn in plots where clover was rototilled were comparable to yields of clean cultivated corn and superior to yields from plots where clover was mowed or unsuppressed. In 1987 rototilling was compared at 3 timings after corn emergence. Highest corn yields were obtained by rototilling the well-established clover at 2 rather than 4 or 6 weeks after emergence. Yields from rototilled plots in 1987 exceeded those from clean cultivated plots or plots where clover was unsuppressed. After rototilling, the clover reestablished via stoloniferous growth emanating from a narrow strip of roots which passed between the tiller tines. In both years corn leaf N concentrations were highest in the rototilled plots. In 1987 clean cultivated corn appeared N deficient and had a greater incidence of corn smut than corn from the rototilled clover plots. Multiple corn row arrangements which facilitate access to the mulch were compared at a constant plant population to conventional single rows on 76 cm centers. There were no differences in yield between single and double rows (152 cm centers) in either year, while the triple-row arrangement (228 cm centers) reduced yield in 1987 due to the low productivity of the plants in the middle row of the 3 rows.

Poor and often illiterate villager farmers in Central America have been taught by World Neighbors programs to (a) establish and manage simple agricultural experiments with one variable, (b) measure accurately the results, and (c) report the results to the program and each other. The impact on the areas' yields of the technology thus generated, validated, spread, and/or locally adapted, has been significant. Although the situation there differs from that of the United States, and therefore the experimental design would differ, many of the principles and advantages of such a system would probably also apply in North America.

Farm programs influence the profitability of a crop rotation through five effects: (1) a deficiency payment (DP) effect, (2) an acreage reduction (ARP) effect, (3) a base effect, (4) a crop price effect, and (5) a risk reduction effect. This study initially examines ARP and DP effects of the 1985 Farm Bill on the relative profitability of a low-input rotation and a grain-intensive conventional rotation in Washington state over 1986–1990. In years of low deficiency payments or high foregone returns from ARP land, the low-input green manure rotation was competitive with the conventional rotation but lost its advantage in years of low ARP costs or high deficiency payments. Long-runincentives to maintain wheat base introduced a consistent bias against the low-input green manure rotation. Planting flexibility options proposed during the 1990 Farm Bill debate could reduce farm program barriers to green manure and other low-input rotations. The Bush Administration's Normal Crop Acreage (NCA) proposal, which was not accepted in the 1990 legislation, would have largely eliminated base erosion for the green manure rotation in this study. More importantly, non-ARP green manure acreage would have qualified for deficiency payments under the NCA, thereby sharply increasing the low-input rotation's relative profitability. Proposals like the NCA might receive further attention in the future due to environmental concerns, fiscal pressures, or possible trade agreements requiring multilateral phaseout of agricultural subsidies coupled to commodities.

Alley cropping is a form of hedgerow intercropping where fast-growing leguminous trees are planted at dense within-row spacing, with agricultural crops planted between the hedgerows. This agroforestry technology, with the hedgerows planted on the contour across the slope, appears promising for small farmers on the hittslopes of Haiti An agroforestry outreach project operating in Haiti since 1981 has helped thousands of farmers plant hedgerows on their farms. The farmers are increasingly accepting the technology: the length of hedgerows planted by the farmers in the project area increased from 11 lineal km in 1987 to 140 lineal km in 1988. An evaluation of 50 farms where hedgerows had been installed shows that this technology results in soil conservation and microsite enrichment between hedgerows; the hedgerows also provide fodder and fuelwood. However, refinements are needed in technical aspects of hedgerow management, such as planting configurations, pruning regime, and choice of species. Moreover, soil and plant parameters as well as socioeconomic characteristics must be monitored in a systematic way in order to assess the impact of hedgerow intercropping on the sustainability of Haitian farming systems.

The research agenda for agriculture remains an important concern for anyone interested in the future of sustainable agriculture. Differences in opinion remain on both prioritization of topics and on how and where the necessary research should be done. The inferences are that the research strategies of the 1960's and 70's were not appropriate. If we truly “learn from each other,” we must consider what recent reports, models, and recommendations from written sources and individuals seem to be saying. Examination of these sources suggests a number of characteristics for the research that is needed: 1) Research which addresses problems regional in scope and which are often site specific; 2) research prioritization must involve a broader cross-section of opinions than ever before and include farmers, private non-profit organizations and scientists; 3) research must be more multidisciplinary and include farmers, extension faculty, and staff more directly; 4) systems research requires more emphasis and adoption f or progress in many areas; 5) basic principles and theory for many agricultural disciplines will need examination and eventual modification; and 6) on-farm research is an essential part of the total research effort. The final obligation for all of us is a vigilance to assure that the research done is always of the highest quality.

We present results from a survey of organic grape operations in the three most important grape-producing areas in West Germany. Data on expenses for fertilizers, pesticides, machinery and buildings, on labor requirements, on the quantity and quality of yields, and on marketing channels and price premiums are compared to data on conventional grape operations from statistical sources. Based on these data, multi-period linear programming models were constructed to assess the economic implications of a transition to organic grape growing for different types of operations. Model results indicate that the grape production quota implemented in West Germany in 1989-90 favors organic methods. However, with direct marketing of wine, the effect of the quota depends on the effect that the expected rise in the price of conventional wine has on the price of organic wine. Premium prices for organically produced wine currently can be achieved only by farms that sell their wine directly to the consumer, which means that direct marketing is necessary for a profitable organic grape operation under current market conditions.

Underestimation of the pivotal role played by managed and native insect pollinators is a key constraint to the sustainability of contemporary agricultural practices. The economic value of such insects to pollination, seed set, and fruit formation greatly outweighs that suggested by more conventional indices, such as the value of honey and wax produced by honeybees. Although the European honeybee has been widely regarded as the single most important pollinating species, the increasing spread of trachael and Varroa mites and Africanized bees threatens the distribution and magnitude of traditional honeybeekeeping enterprises in North America. A number of other bee and insect pollinators, such as orchard bees, bumblebees, and squash bees, which are not affected by either the mites or the Africanized bees, are considered as likely candidates for management and use in commercial agriculture. An additional role can be played by native or wild pollinators, provided that attention is given to curtailing of population losses caused by both inadvertent insecticide poisoning and habitat destruction. To ensure a reliable source of pollinators, both managed and native, a more comprehensive strategy for management of crop pollination is needed. Elements of this strategy include an increased understanding of the biology and ecology of pollinating insects, as well as providing appropriate nesting habitat, and ensuring the availability of alternative sources of “forage” to sustain populations when the target crops are not in bloom. Examples are discussed to illustrate how private initiatives and changes to public policy can enhance pollinator habitat, and ultimately, agricultural productivity.

Complexity and rapid change in the agricultural industry are pushing us toward more participatory systems of information development and exchange. These changes are driven by a rapidly evolving information environment, with a multiplicity of sources and different clients, and by a technological revolution in communications equipment. At the same time, scientists and farmers are becoming increasingly aware of the complex biological interactions that occur in cropping systems and how these are connected with the overall ecosystem. We are expanding our time and space frame of reference. To address tomorrow's challenges, it will be important to blend the efforts in research and extension, to include farmers as full participants in the planning, execution, and interpretation of experiments, to explore new directions such as model farms and master farmers, and to develop creative educational approaches to encourage practical problem solving. Collaborative efforts of universities, industry, farmer groups, and environmental organizations will be needed to fully empower the individual farm manager to make rational and environmentally sound production decisions in the future.

Many farmers and consumers are reevaluating chemical weed control because of the environmental risks of herbicides and their influence on farm size and diversity. This paper reviews research of the last 35 years on mechanical and cultural weed control in corn (Zea mays L.) and soybeans (Glycine max L.). Soybeans can better use the weed control advantages of late planting and narrow row spacing and are less affected by early stand losses from mechanical weed control. In Minnesota, delaying planting to early June allows early germinating weeds to be controlled by preplant tillage but reduces the maximum yield potential of corn by approximately 25 percent and soybeans by approximately 10 percent. Narrow rows allow the crop canopy to close earlier, preventing emerging weeds from developing. However, in a nonchemical weed control system, the row spacing should allow for inter-row cultivation to control weeds that emerge with the crop. Up to a 10 percent reduction in crop stand may be expected in fields that have been rotary hoed. In Minnesota, a 10 percent stand loss results in a 2 percent loss of corn yield potential and no loss of soybean yield potential. Successful mechanical weed control is directly related to the timeliness of the operation. Rotary hoeing is effective on weeds that have germinated but not yet emerged but not on weeds that germinate from deeper than 5 cm, on no-till fields, or on fields with more than 20 to 30 percent crop residue. Inter-row cultivation is most effective on weeds up to 10 to 15 cm tall. Successful nonchemical weed control requires highly refined management skills and is as much an art as a science.

The primary objectives of this study were to describe the various pest control and soil fertility management strategies used by North Carolina farmers and to characterize the types of farms and farmers using each strategy. In 1988, a survey was mailed to farmers who had shown interest in alternative methods and a randomly selected control group of conventional farmers. Cluster analysis on crops, inputs, and cultural practices used by crop farmers in the combined sample showed that they fall into three distinct groups. Very few members of the first group apply standard synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Instead, more than three-quarters of them use cover crops, compost, organic mulch, commercial fertilizers and pesticides labeled as “organic”, resistant varieties, hand weeding, mechanical cultivation, scouting, and biological pest controls. More than half of the second group did not use any nutrient and pest management inputs or practices except synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, and lime. More than three-quarters of the third group reported use of synthetic fertilizers, synthetic herbicides, and lime, but also employed most of the cultural practices reported by alternative farmers. However, they less frequently used labor-intensive practices (such as manuring, mechanical cultivation, and hand weeding) and information-intensive practices (such as scouting and companion planting). Information sources, concerns about farm chemicals, and length of farming experience discriminated better than other socioeconomic factors and farm characteristics between farmers who use conventional chemical inputs and those who use alternative practices. Group 1 farmers differed from Group 3 farmers most sharply in that they rank the cost of pest control products and their extension agents' advice lower, have lower farm incomes, read more information sources promoting reduced synthetic chemicals, own more of the land they operate, and have less farming experience. The only factors significantly discriminating Groups 1 and 2 were that Group 1 fanners rank the importance of their extension agents' recommendations lower and effects of chemical products on birds and wildlife higher, read more reduced-chemical information sources, and have less farming experience.

Extended grazing is a management system in which the usual grazing season is lengthened by utilization of hay fields for pasture. Extended grazing systems are a low-input alternative to conventional systems to the extent that they decrease the reliance on inputs such as machinery and energy to harvest forage. Substituting pasturing for harvested forage can therefore potentially decrease production costs and enhance the profitability of livestock production. However, the farm-level economic impacts of such a substitution are not well known. This analysis quantifies these impacts for beef cow/calf production. Specifying alternative meadow management systems for different grasses and using an economic-engineering approach, we have found that extended grazing can be a more profitable option for cow/calf production. Other findings suggest that, in an extended grazing system, the type of meadow, the hay baling method and the associated hay spoilage level also have important effects on production costs and profitability.

U.S. land grant institutions currently follow? “top-down” model of research and extension in which farmers are the passive recipients of research results based on perceived needs which have been identified, prioritized, and investigated by scientists with little input from the end users. This exclusionary approach was designed to meet the needs of large scale, mono-cultural farming systems. However small scale, diversified, integrated systems are better served by a more participatory approach to research and extension in which farmers are actively involved as peers of researchers and extensionists in identifying research needs, designing and implementing experimental protocols, and delivering research results. This paper provides a brief outline of an alternative to the top-down approach termed “Farmers-First-and-Last”, developed and tested by Robert Chambers of the Institute of Developmental Studies, which has been effective in working with diversified farmers in developing countries.