Throughout the nation, farmers, environmentalists and consumers have come together to address sometimes contentious issues generally flown under the broad banner of sustainability. When trying to understand these issues, it is necessary to look back to the late 1980's, when a small, loosely organized contingency of farmers across the US initiated and supported an idea they called "sustainable agriculture."
Who are these people?
Some are your neighbors - or much like your neighbors. Most managed medium sized farms, but there was no general pattern, no typical type of farm or farm family that led the way into sustainable agriculture. The only unifying characteristic was that all had weathered the severe stress of the mid-80's - they were still farming. And while the battle cry had become "sustainable agriculture," the underlying message was a heartfelt cry that "there must be a better way."
The concept of sustainable agriculture was poorly defined and much debated. It received immediate and vocal support from the environmental community - resulting in immediate and vocal distrust from many mainstream agricultural institutions. The debate about "what it is" quickly moved out of the hands of the farmer organized groups that started it - and into the hands of professionals debaters - the press, official spokespersons for agricultural industry and environmental groups, and of course, the academics. Environmentalists claimed to speak for the good of the public - and the agricultural defenders claimed to speak for the good of farmers. Battle lines between these powerful organizations were quickly drawn and there was little room for compromise.
Overall the attacks from environmentalists generally reflected a poor understanding of agriculture. The response from agricultural commodity groups, agri-business, universities, and established farmer organizations ranged from confused, to openly antagonistic. The renegade farmers who started it all, generally rejected the defense thrown up in their behalf by the agricultural spokespersons from Farm Bureau and agricultural industry. The originators were often concerned about the motives and sometimes embarrassed by the tactics of large well-organized environmental groups.
But these farmer-driven and farmer managed sustainable agriculture organizations persisted. Uneasy and confused by much of the debate, they simply got down to work. Many sustainable agriculture organizations became well established, and began calling for assistance from their government and from their public research and educational institutions. The response to their call for help from the land grant system was at first mixed and not well-organized. As you might expect, individual faculty members and extension staff reacted according to their own experience and personal understanding of the issues. It was into this somewhat tense environment that universities began to address the issues flown under the sustainability banner. A little late according to some, better latethan never according to many, and never would be too soon for others.
While some of most loyal supporters of the land grant system have questioned the judgement of the university administrators and faculty leaders in encouraging the development of sustainable agriculture programs, many, many more have praised new efforts. Most of us surely recognize the need to address environmental concerns.
Remember:
- In the late 80's we were emerging from a farm crisis that had accelerated the rate in which farmers were leaving the farm - many were saying "there must be a better way."
- We were entering a time of renewed heightened awareness of soil erosion issues as conservation compliance legislation became closer to being reality.
- The public had been frightened by two major media events, one concerning the safety of our apples, the other concerning a few grapes from Chile.
- A major confrontation between agricultural and environmental interests was being waged in California over pesticides.
- More food than ever was being sold as "pesticide free" or "organic."
- Pesticides were being detected in rural wells, surface waters, and more recently in snowfall, windblown soil and fog.
- Soil erosion made the front page of the Chicago Tribune and the CEO of Archer Daniels, Midland Co. claimed that soil loss more dangerous a threat than nuclear war.
- Leaders of agricultural organizations and industry joined the farmers who had started it all in saying "there must be a better way."
And where were the universities?
I remind you that public institutions have an obligation to serve the public good. And how better to serve the public than to seriously address the continued degradation of the land that provides our sustenance, and the water that we drink. Solving problems is what we do best. But what are the real problems?
The first step is to carefully define and describe the problems. This is partially a scientific question, calling for research and analysis. So we go to work. We take well- water samples, we look for pesticides in our surface streams, we measure soil loss under different farming systems. We conduct experiments on the degradation of pesticides in the environment. We characterize soil profiles to try an understand why nitrate levels in certain wells are so high. And we describe what we see. That's what we do best.
But that's not enough. You see - some people would describe only 5% of rural wells with traces of pesticide as "not a problem." Some would describe only 12% of rural wells with high nitrate levels as "not a problem," unless you are the one drinking the water.
Other so-called problems are more widespread. For example, during the winter of 1989-90, when analyzing samples from every major snowfall event across the corn belt, we found "only" traces of the herbicide, atrazine.
You see, even once we have described what we find - the debate continues as to what is a problem. Is a low level of herbicide in snowfall a problem? That is where public debate and public dialogue becomes important. In a democracy, the public must be involved - the public must decide. But they must decide based on the best information and an understanding of the all sides of an issue. Good university programs attempt, not to take sides, but to offer the opportunity to share opinions, from all sides. While science can answer part of the problem, personal values must come into play.
Some argue that personal values and opinions have no place in science. I suggest that opinion, speculation and wondering are where science begins. The farmers that first raised the sustainability banner understood this. Remember while they called it sustainable agriculture, between the lines it was easy to read the words, "there must be a better way."
Sustainable agriculture is not an answer. It is a quest for a better way. It is something we hope to achieve. I chose not to talk about sustainable agriculture as if it is a cookbook of practices and products which can be put to work today to solve all our problems. I chose to turn the words around and talk about the quest for agricultural sustainability, or long-term viability of our agricultural production, distribution and marketing systems. I suggest that viability requires change, constant change. Sometimes fast and revolutionary - sometimes slow and evolutionary.
And while research and education alone will not result in long-term viability, neither will we develop those practices and products and systems that help us grow towards that long-term viability without research and education. Of course, that's were universities come in. That's what we do best.
The land grant system continues to change. While I hope we never forget our basic mission of service to the public good, how we chose to address this mission however, will continually change. So we initiate new research programs, we offer new courses, and we address new and continuing problems through our extension education efforts.
We will have some successes. As always, we will do our best but we will make mistakes. Many farmers have criticized the land grant universities. Criticism from both inside and outside the institution, from both our friends and others, is welcome. It says that someone cares about what we do and how we are doing it. And the criticism helps usto focus on what we should be doing. It keeps us sharp. And it pushes us to do better.
Likewise criticism of our agricultural production systems pushes us all to improve. We like to argue that the US has the most efficient, the most productive, and the most environmentally safe agricultural production system in the world. Surely this is true. But it can be better.
You see, I believe, no matter how dedicated our instructors are to quality teaching, no matter how good our research and extension programs are, and no matter how efficient and environmentally sound our agricultural production systems are, no matter how good we are today. . .,
. . . I believe - there always is a better way.
John M. Gerber
Summer, 1991