Farmers, Environmentalists Should Meet
March 20th, 2009(Tom Jirik wrote columns in several newspapers in Iowa from the late 1980’s to the mid 1990’s. This column originally appeared in the The Boone Today)
There’s been a lot of name-calling going on lately.
Some folks have been calling it by its USDA -given name, Low Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA for short). Others have found a more sarcastic name to fit the acronym- Low Income Sustainable Agriculture. Meanwhile, the people in the agriculture public relations game say the problem lies in the name itself. “We’ll never be able to sell the word ‘sustainable’,” they say. “It makes people think of the environmental radicals of the ‘60’s.”
Still others, like Larry Sanders, Great Plains director of the Potash and Phosphate Institute, say the whole idea of low-input, sustainable agriculture is a crock. According to a recent Association Press article, he call LISA a step backward in farming and says “LISA is the chairman of the wrecking crew ” of hysterical individuals who believe modern agriculture is polluting the soil and water.
As the Farm Bill debate in Washington heats up, the debate over LISA (or whatever you call it) intensifies. Congressmen on agriculture committees who you’d expect to pooh-pooh the ideas of the environmentalists are sternly warning Agriculture Secretary Clayton Yeutter that he’d better pay attention to what those environmentalists are saying.
Meanwhile, at home, Dean Kleckner, an Iowa farmer and president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, is taking potshots a the alternative agriculture report published by the National Academy of Science’s National Research Council. John Pesek, the no-nonsense head of the agronomy department at Iowa State University, chaired the committee that conducted the study and wrote the report. Pesek says he understands Kleckner’s claims, but stands firmly behind his work.
If that’s not confusing enough, consider this: the Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical Dealers Association is on friendly terms with Iowa State University’s Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. The Association has also been a big supporter of a new ISU soil test that could reduce Iowa nitrogen fertilizer applications by thousands of tons each year.
Go figure.
Makes one wonder what all the uproar’s about.
You’d think most farmers wouldn’t mind cutting costs a little bit, especially if it didn’t mean cutting the bottom line (and Pesek says it wouldn’t). And most farmers wouldn’t mind protecting the environment while they’re at it either. I don’t see much controversy there.
Most farmers have a bad habit or two they can correct, like using a little extra herbicide or fertilizer- just in case; like not using conservation practices where appropriate because they’re inconvenient; and not trying a new technique or two because of what the neighbors say.
But behind the controversy, the names, the acronyms and the name-calling, the solution seems pretty clear-cut. That solution lies in four areas: research, information, public policy and attitudes.
Public research programs need to find ways to make agriculture and environmental protection compatible while preserving a decent living for farmers. There are already some good steps in that direction.
More information on alternative farming methods, including analysis to determine fertilizer needs and integrated pest management techniques, is available every day. That information needs to widely dispersed in a form that’s easily accessible to farmers. As research expands, so will the base of information. As research expands, so does the base of information.
Public policy needs to be adjusted so it doesn’t penalize farmers who adopt low-input agricultural practices. That’s one point that rings loud and clear in the National Research Council’s report.
And most importantly, farmers and others need to be open to new ideas. Some ideas that spring for LISA and other programs will work. Others won’t. Some will work in some areas and not in others. Some solidly held attitudes need to be changed Environmentalists need to listen to farmers. Farmers need to listen to environmentalists.
No one wants polluted water and eroded landscapes. Everybody wants to eat during the next decade and the next century. So why is everyone arguing?
It shouldn’t be this hard.