(F.A.C.T.) Fair Agricultural Chemical Taxes
Home | Credits | Table of Contents | Footnotes | State Profiles | Contact
| Getting off the Agri-Chemical Treadmill: Saving the Family Farm |
 |
|||||
 ltimately, how can we ever hope to maintain or expand our farm productivity for future generations if we continue to deplete our soil, contaminate our water and atmosphere, and jeopardize our own health? Despite the enormous increase both in the quantities and toxicities of pesticides used, the percentage of crops destroyed by insects nearly doubled from 7 % to 13 % between 1945 and 1989.153 Insects and diseases that have been sprayed with pesticides are evolving resistant forms, requiring farmers to apply even greater quantities of these chemicals and raising serious questions as to the efficacy of using such high levels of pesticides.
Farmers would benefit from practical, professional, in-the-field technical assistance as well as from financial incentives to help make the transition to more sustainable practices.154 The "War on Pests" and the "War on Hunger" with agricultural chemicals have unwittingly trapped farmers into a self-perpetuating vicious cycle. Farmers trapped in this pesticide treadmill often see no options beyond the calendar of planting, spraying, feeding, irrigating and harvesting schedules in order to meet the regimented contract deadline of 20,000 tons of tomatoes by July 15th, August 1st, August 15th, September 1st, etc. with less than 2 % pest damage. The good news is that the yields and profitability of organic and alternative production systems are beginning to rival conventional production systems and have important long-terms advantages that will benefit future generations. A growing body of field research comparing the productivity of organic, alternative, and conventional agricultural demonstrates that the differences in yield and profitability can be minimal (1-3 %). In some field trials, yields produced using alternative approaches even surpassed those produced through conventional methods. The first couple of years, farmers may see an initial decline in yields until their soil is built sufficiently with the more sustainable production methods. Yields then usually return to close to their original levels, but the farmer's costs are largely reduced. Farmers transitioning to more sustainable practices are reducing their costs and improving their overall net returns making it more possible for farmers to reduce or eliminate their chemical inputs into the farm system.155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 The Illinois Stewardship Alliance is comparing the on-farm and off-farm economic, environmental, and social consequences of three farming systems: Conventional, No-Till, and Organic. In their 1998 Progress Report, they outline the costs and net returns of each of the systems for a three-year period. The results of the last year are outlined below. The soil loss for the year is also shown. The farms were selected as representative of typical farms of their type in the area. Total acreage for each farm is conventional — 111.7, no-till — 92.3, and organic — 93 acres. The organic system shows the lowest costs, comparable yields to the conventional system, the least soil loss, and the greatest net return.165 John Ikerd, an Extension Professor and Co-coordinator of the Sustainable Agricultural Systems Program at the University of Missouri conducted a major economic analysis evaluating conventional and alternative production systems for corn, soybeans, milo, small grains, cotton, peanuts, and tobacco for nine major crop-producing regions of the U.S. This analysis accounted for 80 % of the total U.S. production of each crop and compared farm costs, returns, chemical use, and soil loss.166 These crops accounted for over 70 % of the inorganic nitrogen fertilizer and 75 % of the agricultural pesticides used in the U.S. In this analysis, the alternative systems showed increased profits, reduced soil loss, reduced fossil-fuel based energy, reduced direct production costs, reduced use of commercial herbicide and nitrogen fertilizer applications, and increased labor and managerial requirements. Table 4: Costs and Returns of Different Farming Systems per Acre Graph 2: Costs and Returns of Different Farming Systems per Acre
Dr. Ikerd and others point out that the organic and alternative production systems may require more managerial time in general because they require more monitoring, analysis, and decision-making than conventional chemical application calendars. Additional field labor is likely as well and new machinery may be necessary. Alternative systems can lower costs by eliminating the need to purchase pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Ikerd also argued that future analyses should include both the economic costs of environmental harm through industrial agriculture and the economic benefits of environmental restoration through sustainable agriculture and alternative farming systems. This would paint a more accurate picture of yields and profits.167, 168 Nationwide, health and environmental costs incurred as a consequence of pesticide use alone are estimated to be about $8 billion per year.169 This is about what farmers paid to apply pesticides in the same year. In 1987, the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the USDA summarized more than ten years of research to estimate the magnitude and costs of groundwater contamination from agriculture. The ERS estimated that the annual costs of monitoring groundwater contamination for agricultural chemicals, to say nothing of mitigation, would be about $1.3 billion at that time.170 So how can we make the transition from industrialized, chemically-intensive agriculture to sustainable agriculture? The Third Biennial National Organic Farmers' Survey conducted by the Organic Farming Research Foundation asked organic farmers who transitioned from conventional production systems to name some of the biggest barriers for them.171 Weeds, lack of information and experience with alternative methods, finding new markets (especially during the three year transition period), pest control, fertility management, soil restoration, and the higher costs of organic inputs are the operational barriers mentioned the most. Farmers were also asked to name the production information resources that helped them the most. Farmers named other farmers, field consultants, suppliers, and grower associations as among the most helpful and named Cooperative Extension advisors, state agricultural departments, and USDA national and regional offices as the least helpful. Farmers said that they would prefer to continue to get information from other farmers and their other current resources, but that they would like to be able to count on Cooperative Extension advisors as a resource for implementing alternative production methods.172 Others note the inconsistent regional availability of large-scale composting facilities as a barrier to shifting away from synthetic fertilizer reliance.173, 174 Transitioning farmers need technical assistance from people with experience to address the production and marketing issues they face everyday. Knowledgeable advisors are not available in every region and mistakes can have disastrous financial consequences for farmers. The pests, diseases, and needs vary with each crop. Every region is different in terms of soil quality, water availability, and climate. Alternative strategies and products take time to learn to implement properly and to evaluate for effectiveness. New products or industries may need to be developed. What works really well in one region may require modifications in order to work effectively in another region. How can we pay for the harm that has already been done and is still happening? Where will the funds come from to reduce agri-chemical dependence to prevent the harm in the first place?
CONTINUE TO:
|
 |
|
