Society is telling all sectors of the economy, including the agricultural sector, that they want a different mix of outputs. In the 1970’s, society was giving the agricultural sector the message to PRODUCE, PRODUCE, PRODUCE. Agriculturalists were asked to produce as much as possible to sell on the world market. Rarely did individuals or their representatives ask about the off-farm effects like water quality or wildlife habitat. However, in the 1990’s, that is no longer the case. Society is giving the agricultural sector the message that they NO LONGER want food produced as cheaply as possible! They want relatively inexpensive food but they also want a better environment.

What Society Wants

Society is concerned about the quality of the environment. All the polls suggest that Americans want a cleaner environment even if they have to sacrifice economic growth or deal with increased regulations. In 1987, 54% of Americans thought we were spending too little money on improving and protecting the environment and only 7% said that we were spending too much on environmental quality (Lovejoy and Fletcher, 1990). Americans seem to care about their natural environment. In the same poll, 58% of Americans said that we should sacrifice economic growth in order to preserve and protect the environment. Since the early 1970’s, the number of Americans suggesting that we spend too little on environmental protection and improvement has remained between 48 and 61 percent. Sixty-six percent of Americans suggest that protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost. In 1982, 35% of Americans suggested that there was too little governmental regulation and involvement in the area of environmental protection. By 1986 this had risen to 59% of Americans feeling that there was too little governmental regulation and involvement in the area of environmental protection (see Lovejoy and Fletcher, 1990 for details on above statistics).

In general, the high level of concern about the environment, first evidenced in the 1970’s, is still very viable and in some cases growing. A majority of Americans feel that more environmental protection is desirable and are willing to make some sacrifices for such protection.

Farmer Concerns

Many in agriculture realize that people are concerned about the environment and are anticipating that this concern may require changes in agricultural practices and operations. As one farmer stated, “Farming is a service industry … If the other 97% of the population worries about water quality and food safety, farmers had better figure out how to make a Iiving by farming in a way that meets those needs” (Klor, 1989).

A recent survey of Indiana farmers suggests that agricultural producers have altered their attitudes about environmental issues. In 1989, Professor Martin, in this [Purdue Ag Econ Report] publication, reported that over half of Hoosier farmers support the idea that commodity program benefits should be linked to compliance with soil and water conservation practices. While the farmers sampled by Professor Martin did not, contrary to the general public, favor increased regulation, they did favor increased cost share programs to assist producers in the transition to alternative practices or systems of production.

New Agricultural Systems

In light of these concerns, there are many types of agriculture that are being advocated to meet these changing societal goals. Some of these different types of agriculture may influence the future of Indiana agriculture while others may be discarded as inappropriate or impossible. These concepts include: low input, sustainable, regenerative, holistic, alternative, organic, agro-ecologic, permacultural and reduced tillage.

Each of these perspectives has a point; what are needed are changes in human behavior, alterations in the way we produce food and fiber in order to provide the desired outputs (food and a high quality environment). Protection of our environmental resources will require us to alter our soil and water conservation programs as well as our agricultural programs and production practices. However, we must do this in an intelligent manner keeping in mind the DUAL goals of food production and environmental quality. Policies to achieve these societal goals will require the following orientations:

1. Targeting of efforts and resources to those regions, those counties and those acres where agricultural production imposes unacceptable damage to environmental resources. Universal, across-the-board policy instruments will be extremely inefficient.
2. Development of programs and mechanisms which permanently alter production patterns that impose unacceptable damages upon environmental resources rather than utilizing one-year set asides or 10-year CRP.
3. Careful examination of proposed production changes for their impact upon food supplies, prices, local communities and farm families as well as their impact upon environmental amenities, health risks or ecology.

Most farmers want to be good stewards of the land. We, as researchers and educators, are trying to help them in their search for production systems that will produce the food and fiber desired by consumers and to provide the high quality environmental resources demanded by our citizens.

Purdue’s Emphasis

Purdue and the School of Agriculture feel that we have an obligation to assist farmers by providing them with the information necessary to evaluate and utilize production practices, crop rotations, chemical applications and animal production practices that maximize production of food and fiber, BUT minimize the impacts upon environmental resources.

As a method of encouraging the necessary types of research and educational activities, the Center for Alternative Agricultural Systems was established in the Fall of 1989. The purpose of the Center is to foster and promote interdisciplinary research, extension and teaching in the area of alternative agriculture, including relevant thrusts in low input and sustainable good management practices within the con­text of profitability, environmental soundness and social acceptability.

The goals of the Center include the development of the following:

1. Sustainable agricultural systems, including the long-term maintenance of productivity, the continued vitality of rural communities, and the preservation and enhancement of the environment.
2. Alternative plant and animal production systems that enhance profitability, including the optimum use of purchased inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides and antibiotics.
3. Alternative crops and products.
4. Alternative uses of resources such as land, labor, and capital, as a means of generating income in rural areas.
5. Alternative uses and markets for traditional agricultural products to enhance demand.

Center Progress

Over the past several months the Center has assisted in encouraging several research projects. At Throckmorton Agricultural Center, researchers are experimenting with close seeding of soybeans as a weed control strategy. Other researchers are investigating the interactions among a variety of cropping rotations, tillage operations and levels of pesticide and fertilizer use. One group of researchers is investigating the use of different forages and trees in vegeta­tive filter strips in an attempt to provide for protection of water quality with crops that have economic value. The Center is participating in several demonstration and on-farm research projects investigating a variety of systems including intensive grazing, banding of fertilizer and herbicides and timing of fertilization. Many of these projects, as well as others, were highlighted at the Alternative Agricultural Systems Field Day on September 12 at the Throckmorton Agricultural Center, 10 miles south of Lafayette on US 231.

In short, the Center is interested in assisting producers in Indiana with alternative production systems that meet society’s environmental goals and the producers’ economic goals. IN ADDITION, we want to help society refine their environmental goals in such a way that we get a clean environment and maintain a healthy and productive agricultural sector. All of us, as agriculturalists and environmentalists, need to assist in determining the level of agricultural production and environmental quality that our society wants and can afford.

REFERENCES

Klor, Don, 1989. SoyBean Digest, August/September:20.

Lovejoy, Stephen B. and Jerald J. Fletcher, 1990. “Water Quality, Agriculture and Rural America” in Rural Policy for the 1990′ s, edited by Cornelius Flora and James Christenson. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Martin, Marshall A., Bob F. Jones and Dennis Shields, 1989. “The 1990 Farm Bill: Preferences of Indiana Farmers,” Purdue Agricultural Economics Report, August, pps. 5-9.