Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T03:51:09.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An interdisciplinary, experiment station-based participatory comparison of alternative crop management systems for California's Sacramento Valley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Steven R. Temple ,
Diana B. Friedman ,
Oscar Somasco ,
Howard Ferris ,
Kate Scow  and
Karen Klonsky
Steven R. Temple
Affiliation:
Extension Agronomist and coordinating principal investigator, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
Diana B. Friedman
Affiliation:
Current and past research managers, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
Oscar Somasco
Affiliation:
Current and past research managers, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
Howard Ferris
Affiliation:
Department of Nematology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
Kate Scow
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
Karen Klonsky
Affiliation:
Extension Agricultural Economist, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
Get access

Abstract

In 1989, a group of researchers, farmers and farm advisors initiated an interdisciplinary study of the transition from conventional to low-input and organic management of a 4-year, five-crop rotation. Crop yields initially varied among systems, but now appear to be approaching each other after a transition period that included the development of practices and equipment most appropriate for each system. Farming practices and crop production costs are carefully documented to compare the various systems' economic performance and biological risks. Supplying adequate N and managing weeds were challenges for the low-input and organic systems during the first rotation cycle, and experiments are being conducted on an 8-acre companion block to find solutions to these and other problems. Leading conventional and organic growers provide a much-needed farmer perspective on cropping practices and economic interpretations, because we try to provide “best farmer” management of each system. Research groups within the project are focusing on soil microbiology, economics, pest management, agronomy and cover crop management.

Keywords

farming systemscrop rotationparticipatory researchorganic farmingsustainable agriculturesoil ecology
Type
Selected Papers from the Conference on Science and Sustainability, Seattle, Washington, October 24–26, 1993
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 9 , Issue 1-2 , June 1994 , pp. 64 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Dobbs, T.L., Smolik, J., and Mends, C.. 1991. On-farm research comparing conventional and low-input sustainable agriculture systems in the northern Great Plains. In Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education in the Field. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 250–265.Google Scholar
2.Granatstein, D., Bezdicek, D.F., Cochran, V.L., Elliot, L.F., and Hammel, J.. 1987. Long-term tillage and rotation effects on soil microbial, carbon, and nitrogen. Biology and Fertility of Soils 5:265–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.House, G.J., Stinner, B.R., Crossley, D.A. Jr., Odum, E.P., and Langdale, G.W.. 1984. Nitrogen cycling in conventional and no-tillage agroecosystems in the Southern Piedmont. J. Soil and Water Conservation 39:194–200.Google Scholar
4.Janke, R., Pleasant, J. Mount, Peters, S., and Bohlke, M.. 1991. Long-term lowinput cropping systems research. In Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education in the Field. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 291–317.Google Scholar
5.Klonsky, K., and Cary, D.. 1990. Budget Planner Overview. Dept. of Agric. Economics, Univ. of California, Davis.Google Scholar
6.Liebhardt, W.C., Andrews, R.W., Culik, M.N., Harwood, R.R., Janke, R.R., Radke, J.K., and Rieger-Schwartz, S.L.. 1989. Crop production during conversion from conventional to low-input methods. Agronomy J. 81:150–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Lockeretz, W., Shearer, G., and Kohl, D.H.. 1981. Organic farming in the Corn Belt. Science 211:540–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Luna, J.M., Allen, V.G., Daniels, W.L., Fontenot, J.P., Sullivan, P.G., Laub, C.A., Stone, N.D., Vaughan, D.H., Hagood, E.S., and Taylor, D.B.. 1991. Lowinput crop and livestock systems in the southeastern United States. In Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education in the Field. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 183–205.Google Scholar
9.MacRae, R.J., Hill, S.B., Mehuys, G.R., and Henning, J.. 1990. Farm-scale agronomic and economic conversion from conventional to sustainable agriculture. Advances in Agronomy 43:155–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Peters, S.E., Janke, R.R., and Bohlke, M.. 1992. Rodale's farming systems trial 1986–1990. Rodale Institute Research Center, Kutztown, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
11.Reganold, J.P. 1988. Comparison of soil properties as influenced by organic and conventional farming systems. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 3:144–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Reganold, J.P., Elliott, L.F., and Unger, Y.L.. 1987. Long-term effects of organic and conventional farming on soil erosion. Nature 330:370–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Sahs, W.W. 1986. Alternate cropping systems in eastern Nebraska. In Vogtmann, H., Boehncke, E., and Fricke, I. (eds). The Importance of Biological Agriculture in a World of Diminishing Resources. Verlagsgruppe Witzenhausen, Witzenhausen, Germany, pp. 175–183.Google Scholar
14.Sherman, C., Drinkwater, L.E., van Bruggen, A.H.C., Letourneau, D.K., and Workneh, F.. 1991. Comparative study of organic and conventional tomato production systems: An approach to onfarm systems studies. In Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education in the Field. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 109–132.Google Scholar