The focus of this paper is the challenge to technology development in the international pesticide industry. We address these challenges within the context of debates on how to achieve an environmentally- and economically-sustainable world food production system. Forces acting within and upon both pesticide manufacturers and the agrifood system are moving toward globalization and standardization. Main issues on sustainability in agriculture are protecting and improving agricultural resources (e.g., preserving and restoring soil and water quality). This places greater emphasis on diversity, regional self reliance, reduced chemical dependence and greater community involvement. A small but rapidly growing movement in local food systems is evolving in parallel with globalized agribusiness. It offers new opportunities for private sector development of technologies and services. These opportunities could be interesting for companies that are struggling to retain profitability in a stagnant and commodityoriented pesticide market. Our question is whether the pesticide industry is structurally capable of developing innovations in products and services for these new local/regional markets to ensure a more diversified and sustainable agriculture. Our conclusion is probably not, but if the industry were capable of doing so it would first need to acquire a thorough understanding of how organic farming systems function.

An alternative, low-input production system for fresh market tomato was developed using strip tillage practices in conjunction with established bahiagrass pasture. The alternative system was designed to reduce the impact of soilborne pests, minimize agricultural inputs, improve soil conservation and optimize yields. Field experiments indicate that competition from bahiagrassfor nutrients within the tilled strips significantly impacted yield. Selective colonization of tomato roots by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi isolated from field plots was observed. Damage from root-knot nematodes was minimized by planting tomato into established bahiagrass pastures. The alternative system was validated on a commercial tomato production farm in a side by side comparison with a conventional production system consisting of raised beds, fumigated with methyl bromide and covered by black polyethylene plastic. Yields were 6.5 t/ha greater under the conventional system. However, the net return was $568/ha greater in the alternative system. The results indicate that the alternative system has the potential to replace or supplement the conventional production system.

Strip intercropping seeks to capture the biological efficiency of intercropping in traditional agricultural systems and is compatible with agricultural equipment used in the U.S. This efficiency stems from complementary use of resources by constituent crops and is a function of crop selection, strip width and orientation, weed control, and other factors. Strip intercropping requires a high level of management; further, some reports suggest the gains and losses more-or-less balance in actual production situations. These questions are best addressed by the performance of strip intercropping as implemented by farmers in production situations.

Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI) members have worked with Iowa State University agronomists to evaluate strip intercropping. For three years six farmers compared strip intercropping to field blocks of individual crops. The strip intercrop systems employed three crops: corn, soybeans, and small grains with a forage legume underseeding. The comparison systems, crops grown in sole-crop blocks, consisted of the same three crops on four farms (planting pattern comparison) or, on two farms, just corn and soybeans in rotation (systems comparison). Yields and field operations were recorded and entered in the Iowa State University Crop Enterprise Record System (CER) to derive gross profit, total production cost, and net profit for each crop component and for each cropping system on every farm. Strip intercropping net profit was generally greater than that in field blocks, and intercropping compared favorably with CER results obtained from corn-soybean rotations on other farms around Iowa. Land equivalent ratios (LER) were usually greater than 1.0, indicating satisfactory biological efficiency. Despite occasional problems, in this set of 18 site-years strip intercropping was associated with greater stability of net profit.

Land use decisions, following expiration of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts, can be aided by Geographical Information System (GIS) analysis. We utilized a GIS to overlay maps of CRP tracts including wetlands, a surficial aquifer, lakes, rivers and other landscape features in a small watershed in eastern South Dakota. Attribute data including the percentage of highly erodible land, soil type, vegetation, and land capability class were also integrated with the maps. Lake County, South Dakota was used to test the GIS selection model. Criteria were developed for the selection of tracts suitable for various management goals including: protection of surface and groundwater resources, wildlife enhancement, and row-crop or grassland agriculture. The maximum percentage of tract hectares selected for each goal was 17 for groundwater protection, 22 for surface water protection, 18 for wildlife enhancement, 30 for rowcrop production, and 38 for pasture or rangeland. All CRP tracts were selected at least once. The GIS provides a mechanism for selecting CRP tracts to meet several management goals.

Conservation tillage (CS) is used widely in rainfed and sprinkler-irrigated production systems but adoption of CS on furrow-irrigated cropland has been limited. Some crops and crop rotations are more conducive to conservation tillage under furrow irrigation than others. The objective of this research was to evaluate CS in a furrowirrigated crop rotation of corn, soybean, winter barley, and dry bean at Fruita, Colorado in 1991 and 1992. Infiltration rates were 24 and 50% higher and advance times were 37 and 25% longer in the CS treatment during 1991 and 1992, respectively, compared with conventional tillage (CV). Furrows in the CV treatment were 8 and 25% wider than those in the CS treatment after the first and sixth irrigations, respectively. This indicates more soil movement with CV than with CS. In 1992, soil water content in the CS treatment was 17, 17, and 27% higher than with CV throughout the growing season for corn, soybean, and dry bean, respectively. Grain yields of winter barley, soybean, dry bean, and corn were not affected significantly by tillage treatment. Profitability of CS and CV was quite similar when all four crops in the rotation were considered together. This research was conducted under conditions expected to be similar to those that could be used by growers and indicates that corn, soybean, winter barley, and dry bean can be grown successfully in rotation using conservation tillage under furrowirrigated conditions. Successful adoption of conservation tillage under furrow irrigation will require growers to adopt encompassing new production management practices and possibly purchase new equipment such as planters and cultivators that will operate in high residue conditions, and growers must overcome any psychological barriers they may have to maintaining high amounts of surface crop residue when furrow irrigating.