Excerpt
AN exciting dialogue has started across the country, as conservationists, organic food proponents, and average farmers find they have some concerns in common—concerns about groundwater, about health, and about net profits in agriculture.
The movement, if it can be called that, has been labelled low-input, sustainable, regenerative, or alternative agriculture. Whatever the name, the notion has been hailed by many as the best hope of reducing chemicals in water and food supplies and in the farmer's work environment. What is not so commonly recognized is the potential that this type of agriculture offers to improve the quality and quantity of habitat for fish and wildlife.
Conventional versus sustainable
To understand how a more sustainable way of farming could benefit wildlife, it helps to review the ways such a system differs from what has come to be known as “conventional.” On modern, conventional farms the scale of fields and equipment is large. Usually, one or two crops are grown every year. Fewer of these farms have livestock, and if they do, animals are frequently confined in factory-like conditions that necessitate regular doses of antiobiotics to keep them healthy. Soil erosion levels are often high …
Footnotes
Ann Y. Robinson, agricultural specialist for the Izaak Walton League of America, 801 Commerce Drive, Decorah, Iowa 52101, is also a member of the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group and a member of the University of Minnesota's Advisory Panel for an Endowed Chair in Sustainable Agriculture.
- Copyright 1990 by the Soil and Water Conservation Society
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.