Chaff, a by-product of cereal and oilseed production that is largely treated as waste product, may have significant economic value as a ruminant feed, and its collection and removal may reduce herbicide usage and tillage. We surveyed fifty farms located throughout the Brown, Dark Brown, and Black/Grey Wooded soil zones of Saskatchewan to determine the costs and benefits of their chaff collection systems. Benefits measured or estimated included both the feed value of chaff and agronomic benefits in the form of reduced tillage and herbicide requirements. Costs measured were for equipment and machinery ownership, maintenance and operation, including labor. The survey responses showed that, regardless of the type of collection system utilized, feed-related benefits outweighed the costs under the stated assumptions about prices and methods of assigning costs. Agronomic benefits alone also were sufficient to offset chaff collection costs. The net benefits of chaff collection are related to both the quantity of chaff collected and the distance the material is transported.

Wildlife and fish have much to gain from the movement toward alternative, sustainable agricultural practices. Interrelated reasons for the habitat improvements to be expected from a change to sustainable systems include reduced use of agricultural chemicals, better care of the soil, and reintroduction of greater landscape diversity. The most well-documented benefits would result from reduced use of agrichemicals, which often are toxic and frequently change the structure and composition of available food and cover. The wildlife benefits of erosion prevention and landscape diversification are less well-documented but may be as significant for habitat improvement. The opportunities to enhance habitat using sustainable farming methods are beginning to receive increased attention from wildlife professionals. As a result, efforts are under way to expand use of sustainable methods on farmlands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Labor requirements, production costs, yields, and economic returns were evaluated for conventional and reduced-chemical cropping systems in northeast Iowa from 1978 to 1989. Continuous corn (C-C) and corn-soybean (C-Sb) rotations represented the conventional system; a corn-oat-meadow (C-O-M) rotation represented the reducedchemical system. The C-C and C-Sb rotations used both commercial pesticides and fertilizers. The C-O-M rotation used manure for fertilization and applied pesticides only in emergencies. Operations for all systems were implemented by one farm manager. The C-Sb rotation had the highest corn yield over the 12-year period, and the C-O-M rotation the lowest. The corn within the C-O-M rotation, however, produced the second highest average return to land, labor, and management. With costs of production substantially lower than the conventional systems, the C-O-M corn crop had competitive returns despite lower yield. The C-Sb average return to land, labor, and management was significantly higher than for the other systems. Hourly labor charges of $4, $10, $20, and $50 had little effect on the rankings of economic returns. Because of unusually high alfalfa reseeding costs and low average oat yields, returns to the C-O-M rotation were significantly lower than C-Sb but comparable to C-C. With better alfalfa establishment and higher average oat yields, the reduced-chemical system might have been competitive with the C-Sb conventional system.

The March 1989 food safety episodes involving Alar on apples and the cyanide tainted grapes found in a Chilean shipment were seminal events in the history of U.S. organic agriculture. Demand for organic produce soared as a consequence of these events, and mainstream supermarkets began adding more organic produce to their traditional product lines. But when organic supplies proved scarce, and as prices increased, consumer purchases decreased and many marketing managers began to question the rationality of allocating scarce shelf space to organic products. In fact, many supermarket chains either drastically reduced their organic offerings or dropped them altogether. Some analysts proclaimed that organics had failed the market test. However, two surveys we carried out in 1989 and 1991 among major California supermarket chains show that forecasts of the demise of organic produce in mainstream markets may have been premature. Of 16 chains responding to our survey, 12 continue to carry organic produce. All had carried organics for more than six months, two-thirds of them for more than a year. Of the 12 that carry organics, six rate organics as worse overall than conventional produce. But, interestingly, six rate organics as “about the same” as conventional produce. This is a significant achievement for organics. Organics rated better on environmental impact and residues, worse on appearance and shelf life, and “about the same” on flavor and nutritive value. Despite the constraints and difficulties encountered in marketing organic foods, 8 of the 12 chains that carry organics would carry more organic fruits and vegetables if supplies were available. The prospects for certified “pesticide free” produce are less definite.

Diversification into alternative enterprises appears to be gaining in popularity and economic importance as a way to supplement family income and to provide alternative sources of high-quality food. However, potential rabbit producers lack information about investment requirements and production and marketing costs. The objective of this study was to determine the most profitable operation of small-scale rabbit production by estimating the costs and returns, net present values, and payback periods of two rabbit production systems. Despite a difference in the net income generated, a cash surplus occurred for both systems at the end of the third year. This surplus was the return to land, family labor, and management. Thus, rabbit enterprises may provide economic opportunities for farm families who have limited land and capital.

Alternative agriculture can be viewed as an alternative belief system to that underlying conventional agriculture. However, alternative agriculture can also be viewed from a technological perspective—that is, as a set of substitute technologies to conventional agriculture from which a farmer can selectively choose. Definitional distinctions between low-input, organic, sustainable, and conventional agriculture become important with this second perspective. Different policy and research implications are generated from these competing perspectives.