Based on the interest of organic and conventional farmers in Iowa in long-term analysis of organic systems, the Neely-Kinyon Long-Term Agroecological Research (LTAR) site was established in 1998 to examine the agronomic and economic performance of conventional and organic systems, using certified organic production practices. We report the results of the economic analysis from 3 years of production (1999–2001). Using organic price premiums for organic crops, returns for corn within the organic corn-soybean-oat and corn-soybean-oat-alfalfa rotations were significantly greater than conventional corn-soybean rotation returns (US$126 ha−1). Com returns were not significantly different between the two organic rotations, at US$655 ha−1 and US$674 ha−1, respectively. Returns for soybean within the organic corn-soybean-oat and com-soybean-oat-alfalfa rotations were not significantly different, at US$1233 ha−1 and US$1326 ha−1, respectively. Organic soybean returns were significantly greater than conventional soybean crop returns (US$235 ha−1) in the corn-soybean rotation. Rotational 3-year average returns were US$180 ha−1 for the conventional corn-soybean rotation, compared to US$734 ha−1 for the organic corn-soybean-oat and US$739 ha−1 for the organic com-soybean-oat-alfalfa rotation.

Animal production in US agriculture during 1997 was compared with Holmes County, Ohio, in which half the farms belonged to the agrarian Amish whose small farms have been successful. To compare the intensity of animal production in regard to land that was already devoted solely to domestic feed, the two systems were scaled so that their average farm sizes contained equal land areas devoted to domestic feed and then their animal production per farm was adjusted by the same scaling. By breeding populations, as well as large imports of feed, feeder pigs, calves, and broiler chicks. Holmes County produced three times more milk, four times more broilers, about the same amount of eggs and cattle, and twice the pigs per scaled farm, and hence per given land area, as in the US. Despite the average farm size in Holmes County having been 40% smaller than in Ohio overall, this production yielded more than twice the energy and protein per scaled farm, or per given land area, compared to the US, and required almost twice the feed and 85% as much grazed pasture forage per farm. This was in accord with the fact that feed consumption in Holmes County was twice its harvested crop production, implying a net feed import equal to its crop production. The latter fact was the main contribution to the productivity of Holmes County in excess of the US, and also suggested there would be serious problems in widespread adoption of intensive animal production in regard to agricultural markets, soil fertility and farm nutrient losses through manure application. Energy conversion efficiency for the five animal products and breeding populations was greater in Holmes County than the US (10 and 7%, respectively) and likewise for protein (22 and 13%). Besides imported feed, the higher efficiency of Holmes County was also due to its greater emphasis on milk production, which has benefited from USDA milk price support, modern dairy genetics and dairy nutrition programs. The lower overall efficiency of the US has been partly a result of the fact that beef production and breeding, judged by feed alone, have been the least efficient of the five animal products in energy conversion and nearly the least for protein, regardless of the fact that among the five products, beef cattle are the only animals that nationally derived much of their nutrition from the large national area of grazing land.

Over 61% of farmers who sell agricultural products through farmers' markets are satisfied with the returns they generate. Producers who are 50 years of age or older and those who retail at least 70% of the dollar value of the products are more likely to be highly satisfied with their profit margin from farmers' markets. A strong positive relationship is documented between profit margin satisfaction and growers who offer organic produce for sale. Furthermore, the results suggest that producers with farmers' market businesses in the growing stage are more likely to be highly satisfied with profit margins.

Farmers' markets promote alternative agriculture by allowing farmers to meet the demand for specialized agricultural products and establish new businesses. Farmers sell at farmers' markets for social and personal, as well as economic, reasons. Successful farmers' marketing involves interactions with customers, but little is known about these interactions. This study aimed to determine what happens when a family shops at farmers' markets, specifically how parents and children interact in the market in relation to each other and to the farmers. Systematic observation was used to follow 22 families with young children. A coding sheet was used to categorize sensory, perfunctory, informational interactions, attempts to influence purchases and additional interactions. Results showed information was more likely to be exchanged between farmers and parents or parents and children. Children were more likely to be involved in sensory interactions. Farmers interact with families through perfunctory interactions or informational interactions, rather than encouraging them to buy specific items. Since some important societal benefits of farmers' markets can only be achieved if information is exchanged during interactions, market managers and outreach professionals should encourage and assist farmers with providing information to customers. Further research is needed to understand why farmers favor social over explicitly sales-focused interactions, which interactive strategies may be optimal to achieve the fullest economic and non-economic benefits for both farmers and customers, and what is the economic and non-economic impact of providing information in the farmers' market.

The development of production systems that provide the benefits of reduced tillage and also reduce or eliminate herbicide inputs presents a challenge to practitioners of sustainable agriculture. This research was conducted to evaluate management approaches for minimum-tillage corn production in a hairy vetch cover crop, specifically, mechanical versus herbicidal methods for pre-plant cover-crop kill and for post-emergence control of emerged weeds. Pre-plant treatments included 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid] plus residual herbicides, 2,4-D alone, flail mower, corn stalk chopper, light disk and heavy disk. The pre-plant herbicide treatments were followed by a post-emergence treatment of dicamba, whereas the pre-plant mechanical treatments were followed by post-emergence cultivation, as needed, for weed control. The mechanical treatments that kept residue on the soil surface (mower, stalk chopper and light disk) killed hairy vetch when it was flowering, but not when vegetative. The herbicide treatment with pre-plant 2,4-D alone, followed by dicamba post-emergence, controlled annual broadleaf weeds (the dominant species in these experiments) similarly to treatment with 2,4-D plus residual herbicides, suggesting that residual herbicides may be eliminated in cover-crop-based no-tillage systems. The pre-plant mechanical treatments followed by cultivation did not control annual broadleaf weeds as well as herbicide treatments, but did maintain final populations below threshold levels in two of four experiments. The stalk chopper and light disk left high levels of vetch residue on the soil surface, and reduced initial broadleaf weed populations compared with the heavy disk that incorporated residue. However, broadleaf weed populations were reduced with less efficiency by cultivation of unfilled soil following the stalk chopper or light disk (38–69%) than by cultivation of tilled soil following the heavy disk (87–95%). Thus, although maintaining surface cover-crop residue without tillage initially reduced weed emergence, it also reduced the efficiency of cultivation, leading to similar final weed populations in all mechanical-based, pre-plant treatments.

This paper examines what land grant colleges of agriculture were designed to be and do and, using their published mission statements, discusses what they now claim to be and do. Teaching ‘such branches of learning as are related to the agriculture and the mechanic arts’ and ‘to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes’ is what land grant colleges were designed to do; it is the land grant mission. The paper asks whether these things are what land grant colleges of agriculture do now. The original mission has been amended with new challenges that must be met in a time of declining public support for higher education, societal distrust of science and a negative public perception of agricultural technology, in a culture that wants cheap food. The agricultural community, including colleges of agriculture, has been slow to accept the challenges and opportunities inherent in the questions agriculture now faces. Agriculture remains an essential human activity in our post-industrial, information-age society. Colleges of agriculture are in trouble, and this paper suggests that the sensible thing to do may be to turn away from self-interest in survival to take a leadership role with emphasis on the obligations of service and humanism.