WSP05005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o~o ~'? ~... Sustainable Agriculture: Avoiding the Definition Trap Doug Romig The final harvest Qf the biculture experiment was interrupted for the third time by a steady drizzle. The paper bags were deteriorating in our hands as we moved through the plots. Our clothes were soggy and our boots weighted with mud. Somebody said, "Let's blow this off and go to Lincoln." We were offl Fortunately our adventure had purpose and was not just a frivolous expenditure of oil.' Chuck' Francis, and Crop Extension Specialist at the U niver- sity of Nebraska, had invited the. interns to attend the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources (SANR) Conference in Lincoln, Nebraska. The' University-along with the Soil Conservation Service. (SCS), DuPont, the Nebraska Soybean Board, and' twelve other groups-sponsored this forum that ad- . dressed the design of "a profitable agriculture that is environmentally sound, resource efficient, sociaIly acceptable and thus sustainable for the future." Participants included policy makers, research- ers, public and private administrators, extension spe- cialists, agribusiness representatives, leaders of non- profit farm groups and a smattering of farmers and ranchers. The SCS was weIl-represented, but Chuck . had anticipated greater attendance from other gov- ernmental agencies, especiaIly the fllderal Environ- mental Protection Agency and S.tate agriculture departments. He was particularly surprised that no personnel from the state agriculture agencies of Kansas and Nebraska showed up. The purpose of the four day conference was to facilitate cOlllmunication within the sustainable agri- . culture movement.. The first half Qfthe program in- 'cludedgti.estspeakers.andreports about innovative ideas and successful programs in sustainable agricul- ture across the country. On the third day, partici- pants formed teams and divided into regional groups to improve communication. They toured experimen- . tal stations and farms on the fourth day. The Land Institute interns attended only the first two days of the conference. One of the first speakers we heard was Jim Moseley, an assistant secretary in the U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture concerned with the environment and natural resources. He issued a challenge: to solidify a definition of sustainable agriculture. I have reservations about accepting this challenge. First, it may splinter the movement between those who wish to begin taking steps 'now to implement new farming methods, and those who wish to define a vision that has escaped language for some time. But more importantly, it gives strength and time to those who wish to snuff out the movemel)t. The chaIlenge frustrated the other interns also because it restricted and redirected the focus of the conference to the search for a definition. As a consequence, much of the discussion concerning active steps to achieve a sustainable agriculture was stifled. Many speakers were so preoccupied with the challenge that they glossed over real issues that needed to be addressed at this conference. One speaker told of a collection of some 800 postulated definitions of sustainable agri- culture. In light of this, it appears that waiting for a single definition CQuld halt any progress towards sus- tainability inagrlculture. Many of the definitions I heard included indus- trial and information-age jargon. Words like "sys- tem," "management" and "producer" were being used. to describe a vision that calls for more organic and biocentric terms. It could be even a greater misfor- tune if words such as "stewardship" and "husbandry" are adopted as' the langnage of sustainable agricul- ture without their underlying meanings intact. The words may become apparitions haunting grant proposals for research that is essentially conven- tional. Visionaries, on the other hand, continue to. explore all the implications of sustainability and have yet to find real terms for its definition. Despite the urgency to give words to an intuitive sense,. language severely limits and hinders a complete and flexible definition. This is especially true if we try to include issues of social justice and rights of nature. These are slippery concepts and can be misconstrued, but they are vital if we truly desire sustainability. Misinterpretation begins when wejudge the proverbial book by its cover. For example, Luther Tweeten, an 'agricultural economist at Ohio State University, said at the conference that 80% of our crops are now grown in some form of rotation. Tweeten implied that sustainable agriculture is already in place. But he is missing the point, for sustainable agriculture is much more than a type of cropping system or a political therapy for the farm. A rotation of corn and soybeans in Nebraska, fed by chemical fertilizers, protected by pesticides and irrigated by fossil water from the OgaIlala Aquifer is not viable for the long-term. It was apparent to the interns that Tweeten, like many agricultural economists, has influenced. the discussion of the meaning of sustainable agriculture. The persistent focus on short-term viability and the bottom line of a farm's accounting ledger infected 'almost everyone's definition, and effectively pre- vented any quality discussion oflong-term considera- , ~ ~ ~ , , . i " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ !'" ii ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ fj. .,;; ~ .< E ~ b,'" ~ " ~ ~ ~ ':o'! ;-;:- :ii ~ ~ t'..:;, ..::. :'." ff " .::: ~~ ~ !;a ~1 ~ ~ t~ {: 14