Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:52:41.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Can agricultural colleges meet the needs of sustainable agriculture?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

William B. Lacy
Affiliation:
Assistant Dean for Research and Professor of Rural Sociology, College of Agricultural Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.
Get access

Abstract

As concern about the long-term viability of our food and fiber system has grown, many agricultural research administrators, prominent scientists and policymakers have focused increasing attention on the important research and educational needs in sustainable agriculture. Colleges of agriculture should be important in meeting the challenges of sustainable agriculture; a central question is whether they are adequate for the task. This paper highlights several individual and institutional constraints that limit the ability of these colleges to address the needs: 1) assumptions and biases regarding the relationship between humans and nature, and the concept of progress; 2) the demographic characteristics, education, and experience of research scientists; 3) the specialized departmental organization of research institutions; 4) imbalances among analyses on the molecular, cell, organism and ecosystem levels; 5) emphasis on farm level analysis and technology development; 6) new agricultural biotechnologies that may overemphasize short-term, narrow technical considerations and proprietary products; 7) compartmentalization of education by discipline, and the limited informal and field experiences for students; 8) the background and education of current Extension Service agents; 9) the emphasis on economic effects in research impact assessments, to the neglect of environmental effects and social consequences for farmers, rural communities and society at large; 10) limited capability for comprehensive public policy analysis.

Despite these limitations, new research agendas and college programs are effectively addressing many needs of sustainable agriculture systems. To be more successful, these efforts must be broad-based and sensitive to a wide range of issues, and must include all participants in the system.

Type
Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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.Allen, P., and Van Dusen, D.. 1990. Sustainability in the balance: Raising fundamental issues. Agroecology Program, Univ. of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
2.Allen, P., Van Dusen, D., Lundy, J., and Gliessman, S.. 1991. Integrating social, environmental, and economic issues in sustainable agriculture. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 6(1):3439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Bird, G.W. 1992. Sustainable agriculture and 1990 Farm Bill. In Proceedings of The Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture, 1991–1992. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp. 108117.Google Scholar
4.Busch, L., and Lacy, W.B.. 1983. Science, Agriculture and the Politics of Research. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
5.Busch, L., Lacy, W., Burkhardt, J., and Lacy, L.. 1991. Plants, Power, and Profit: Social, Economic and Value Consequences of the New Biotechnologies. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
6.Cook, R.J. 1991. Challenges and rewards of sustainable agriculture research and education. In Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education in the Field: A Proceedings. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 3276.Google Scholar
7.Dahlberg, K.A. 1987. Redefining development priorities: Genetic diversity and agroeco-development. Conservation Biology 1:311322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Doyle, J. 1985. Altered Harvest: Agriculture, Genetics, and the Fate of the World's Food Supply. Viking, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
9.Ebenreck, S. 1992. A sense of place: The nature and significance of community. In Alternative Fanning Systems and Rural Communities: Exploring the Connections. Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, MD. pp. 18.Google Scholar
10.Gardner, J.C., Anderson, V.L., Schatz, B.G., Carr, P.M., and Guldan, S.J.. 1991. Overview of current sustainable agriculture research. In Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education in the Field: A Proceedings. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 7791.Google Scholar
11.Harwood, R.R. 1990. A history of sustainable agriculture. In Edwards, C.A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R.H. and House, G. (eds). Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Soil and Water Conservation Soc., Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 319.Google Scholar
12.Hightower, J. 1973. Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times. Schenckman Publishing Co., Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
13.Lacy, W.B., Lacy, L.R., and Busch, L.. 1988. Agricultural biotechnology research: Practices, consequences, and policy recommendations. Agriculture and Human Values 5(3):314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Lacy, W.B., Lacy, L.R., and Busch, L.. 1992. Emerging trends, consequences and policy issues of agricultural biotechnology. In Hallberg, M. (ed). Bovine Somatotropin and Emerging Issues. Westview, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 332.Google Scholar
15.Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. 1990. Annual Report. Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
16.National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. Board on Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
17.National Research Council. 1991. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education in the Field: A Proceedings. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
18.Schaller, N. 1991. An agenda for research on the impacts of sustainable agriculture. Occasional Paper No. 2. Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, Maryland.Google Scholar
19.Schaller, N. 1992. A Choices dialogue on mandated training in sustainable agriculture: It's an opportunity. Choices 7(1):33.Google Scholar