2
A Pivotal Time in Agriculture

Modern agriculture, U.S. agriculture in particular, has had an impressive history of productivity (Gardner, 2002) that has resulted in relatively affordable food, feed, and fiber for domestic purposes, accompanied by substantial growth in agricultural exports. The population of the United States grew from 75 million in 1900 to 307 million in 2009 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). In 2008, agricultural exports reached a record $115 billion (USDA-ERS, 2009a). U.S. farm productivity has increased significantly over the last 50 years. Farm output in 2008 was 158 percent higher than it was in 1948 (Figure 2-1). Farm output was growing at an average annual rate of 1.58 percent, but aggregate inputs used increased only 0.06 percent annually (USDA-ERS, 2010).

As a result of improved productivity, fewer farmers are producing more food and fiber on about the same acreage as the beginning of the century to meet the current demands of domestic and international markets; both markets are significantly larger now than they were in the 1900s. Furthermore, the growth in demand has been accompanied by a decline in the average percentage of disposable income spent by U.S. consumers for food. For example, in 1950, the average percentage of disposable income spent on food—for food at home and away from home—was 20.6 percent. By 2008, that amount was 9.6 percent (USDA-ERS, 2005a).

Farmers are producing more food and fiber with less energy compared to 50 years ago (Figure 2-2; Shoemaker et al., 2006). They achieve higher output per unit energy input (Schnepf, 2004) using a number of strategies to reduce direct and indirect energy use. Direct energy use1 has been reduced as a result of advances in equipment efficiency, irrigation efficiency, adoption of no-till or conservation tillage, and other practices and technologies (USDA-NRCS, 2006). Indirect energy use2 has been reduced by increasing provision of

1

Direct energy use in farming includes fuels to operate cars, trucks, and equipment for preparing fields, planting and harvesting crops, and applying chemicals (Schnepf, 2004).

2

Indirect energy use in farming includes energy used off farm to manufacture farm inputs. Indirect energy use is dominated by fertilizer and pesticide use (Schnepf, 2004).



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 43
2 A Pivotal Time in Agriculture M odern agriculture, U.S. agriculture in particular, has had an impressive history of productivity (Gardner, 2002) that has resulted in relatively affordable food, feed, and fiber for domestic purposes, accompanied by substantial growth in agricul- tural exports. The population of the United States grew from 75 million in 1900 to 307 mil- lion in 2009 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). In 2008, agricultural exports reached a record $115 billion (USDA-ERS, 2009a). U.S. farm productivity has increased significantly over the last 50 years. Farm output in 2008 was 158 percent higher than it was in 1948 (Figure 2-1). Farm output was growing at an average annual rate of 1.58 percent, but aggregate inputs used increased only 0.06 percent annually (USDA-ERS, 2010). As a result of improved productivity, fewer farmers are producing more food and fiber on about the same acreage as the beginning of the century to meet the current demands of domestic and international markets; both markets are significantly larger now than they were in the 1900s. Furthermore, the growth in demand has been accompanied by a decline in the average percentage of disposable income spent by U.S. consumers for food. For example, in 1950, the average percentage of disposable income spent on food—for food at home and away from home—was 20.6 percent. By 2008, that amount was 9.6 percent (USDA-ERS, 2005a). Farmers are producing more food and fiber with less energy compared to 50 years ago (Figure 2-2; Shoemaker et al., 2006). They achieve higher output per unit energy input (Schnepf, 2004) using a number of strategies to reduce direct and indirect energy use. Direct energy use1 has been reduced as a result of advances in equipment efficiency, irrigation efficiency, adoption of no-till or conservation tillage, and other practices and technologies (USDA-NRCS, 2006). Indirect energy use2 has been reduced by increasing provision of 1 Direct energy use in farming includes fuels to operate cars, trucks, and equipment for preparing fields, planting and harvesting crops, and applying chemicals (Schnepf, 2004). 2 Indirect energy use in farming includes energy used off farm to manufacture farm inputs. Indirect energy use is dominated by fertilizer and pesticide use (Schnepf, 2004). 

OCR for page 43
 TOWARD SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS IN THE 21ST CENTURY FIGURE - Agricultural productivity in the United States. SOURCE: USDA-ERS (2010). 2-1.eps within-farm biogeophysical (ecosystem) bitmap For example, farming systems have been services. using crop rotations that could reduce pests and disease incidence so that pesticide use is reduced. Some farms use livestock manure to fertilize crops so that use of synthetic fertil- izer is reduced. Precision agriculture for nutrient and pesticide application holds promise for reducing input use and maintain yield. Despite such advances, much progress in agriculture focuses on primarily one goal— satisfy human food, feed, and fiber fuel needs—and secondarily on the goals of enhanc- ing environmental quality or resource base and of sustaining the economic vitality of 2.0 Energy Use Per Unit of Total Farm Output 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 1948 1951 1954 1957 1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 FIGURE - Total farm output per unit of energy use over time. NOTE: Energy input use if total farm output was 1 in 1996. SOURCE: USDA-ERS (2009b). New Figure 2-2 from source vector editable

OCR for page 43
 A PIVOTAL TIME IN AGRICULTURE agriculture. Agriculture worldwide is facing the daunting challenges of providing for an increasing population that has changing food consumption patterns under the constraints of natural resource scarcity, avoiding environmental degradation, climate change, and a restructuring global economy. In addition, consumers (including food buyers) are increas- ingly conscious about the sources of their food and how it is produced. Consumer concerns can translate into political and market demands for addressing the challenges. Thus, agri- culture appears to be at a pivotal stage in terms of societal demands for agricultural systems with improved sustainability—that is, systems that address and balance social, economic, and environmental performance, and increase robustness in the face of new challenges. There are growing concerns about whether the trends of increasing productivity per acre of land can continue while maintaining or restoring the natural resource base upon which agriculture depends. Similarly, researchers and some members of the public are increasingly worried about many of the unintended negative consequences of agricultural production—for example, the effect of agriculture on environmental quality and ecosystem functioning, the potential risks of agricultural pollutants or risks of contamination of food and water by agricultural input to human health, and the safety and nutritional content of the food produced. Some observers raise the issues of how modern agriculture affects the well-being of farming communities, farm families, farm laborers, and livestock (Friedland et al., 1991; Vitousek et al., 1997). Those concerns have caused observers to question whether U.S. agriculture can continue to supply adequate quantities of reasonably priced food, feed, and fiber using conventional production methods. What are the tradeoffs and risks that will be required to maintain, and even increase, growth in productivity? Many unintended consequences of agricultural activities can be thought of as external- ized costs of production, which are real, but mostly unaccounted for in productivity mea- sures or internal financial budgets of farm enterprises. Societal concerns raise important public policy questions regarding the type, scale, and organization of U.S. agriculture that can best meet society’s needs in the future. Those concerns generate interest in alternatives to the current system of agricultural production that might increase the sustainability and broader performance of modern farming systems. The two major concerns of resource sufficiency and unintended consequences can be summarized in two questions: Are cur- rent agricultural practices and systems sustainable? If not, how can agriculture be moved toward a more sustainable trajectory? The purpose of this report is to identify what is known about farming practices and systems and their ability to address the identified concerns. This chapter provides a brief overview of how U.S. agriculture has evolved over the years to the current state. Despite the many positive changes (for example, increased productivity), farmers now face a different set of challenges related to environmental, social, and economic concerns. This chapter also discusses those challenges. A BRIEF HISTORY OF U.S. AGRICULTURE U.S. agriculture’s current structure and organization is a product of a long evolution (Batie, 2008). Since World War II, increased mechanization, rising productivity, and growth in nonfarm employment opportunities combined to produce more than a 60 percent drop in the number of farming operations and a doubling in average farm size in the United States (Gardner, 2002). Between 1982 and 2002, most types of crop farms have at least doubled in size, and the average size of livestock herds has increased by 2–20 times, depending on spe- cies (MacDonald and McBride, 2009). Growth in scale and productivity among the remain-

OCR for page 43
 TOWARD SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ing commercial farming operations has been sufficient to sustain steady annual growth in agricultural output of almost 2 percent a year (Fuglie et al., 2007). Unlike many sectors of the U.S. economy in which growth is associated with increased use of inputs, agricultural output has been increasing substantially despite a decline in such purchased inputs as capital, land, labor, and materials (Ball, 2005). For example, land used for crop production, as pasture or as idled cropland, has declined steadily since World War II. Although there is much year-to-year variation in the acreage of cropland used for crops from 1910 to 2005, the acreage in 2005 is comparable to that of 1910 (Figure 2-3). Yet those croplands are producing vastly more food, fiber, and fuel (USDA-NASS, 2002). Yields per acre have grown since 1935 at a rate of 2.1 percent per year (Gardner, 2002). U.S. corn yield, for example, has been increasing steadily (Cassman and Liska, 2007). Many other U.S. crops have similar histories of growth in their yields per acre (Gardner, 2002). The dramatic changes in farm size and productivity are associated with two important trends in the structure of the U.S. farm sector: increased concentration and specialization in farm production. In the first instance, a smaller fraction of farms is increasingly responsible for producing the overwhelming bulk of American food output (Gardner, 2002). In 2002, for example, the top 6.7 percent of the largest farms in the United States (143,547 farms) accounted for 75 percent of total farm sales (USDA-NASS, 2002). In the second instance, farms have become increasingly specialized since the early 1960s, and the average num- ber of major commodities raised on a typical farm declined from 5.6 in 1920 to 1.3 in 2002 (Gardner, 2002). Prior to World War II, almost all U.S. farms raised a diverse set of com- modities (particularly chickens, pigs, cattle, potatoes, hay, and corn). The growing special- ization of production is associated with technological change, increased labor productivity, and growing economies of scale3 (Hallam, 1993; MacDonald and McBride, 2009). One of the most striking specialization trends in U.S. agriculture has been the de- coupling of crop and livestock production (Russelle et al., 2007). The growth of highly specialized confinement livestock operations has led to greatly increased animal densities (livestock units per acre of available land) and the geographic movement of poultry, hog, and dairy production away from traditional feed grain production regions (McBride, 1997; Hart, 2003). The dramatic changes in U.S. agriculture over the last half-century have been influ- enced by four major drivers: new agricultural technologies, expansion and commercializa- tion of markets, government programs, and research and development. New agricultural technologies. Resource sufficiency concerns over the last century were overcome by the development and diffusion of new agricultural technologies, rather than increased land area devoted to farming (Figure 2-3). In the case of corn, for example, much of the increase in productivity can be attributed to increased yields per unit land as a result of improved breeding, fertilizer use, pest management, and irrigation (Figure 2-4) (Tilman, 1999; Cassman and Liska, 2007). Most technological innovations have favored larger farms (Halloran and Archer, 2008) because mechanical equipment has to be used for a minimum number of hours or acres to achieve efficiency. Modern crop varieties and off-farm inputs have become tools used by some farmers to manage the risks associated with large-scale monoculture farming (Halloran and Archer, 2008). Mechanization in agriculture and its improvement over time has reduced labor re- quirements and increased labor productivity (Sassenrath et al., 2008). The number of work- ers per acre of production has declined significantly in the last century (Schjonning et al., 3 “Economies of scale” refers to the reduced costs per unit produced as farm output increases.

OCR for page 43
 A PIVOTAL TIME IN AGRICULTURE FIGURE - Acreage of cropland used for crops. SOURCE: USDA-ERS (Vesterby et al., 2004). 2-3.eps bitmap 2004). Farms and ranches in the United States are now managed by less than 2 percent of the population (Vesterby and Krupa, 2001), but occupy about half of the total acreage of the country (Lubowski et al., 2006). Expansion and commercialization of markets. The increased production and pro- ductivity of U.S. agriculture has occurred in tandem with a significant expansion of export markets for U.S. farm products and the rapid consolidation and vertical integration of national and global food processing, distribution, and retailing sectors (MacDonald and McBride, 2009). While U.S. population growth has increased by roughly 1 percent annually FIGURE - U.S. maize yield trends, 1966–2005, and the technological innovations that contributed to this yield advance. SOURCE: Cassman and Liska (2007). Reprinted with permission from Wiley. Figure 2-4 replaced from source

OCR for page 43
 TOWARD SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS IN THE 21ST CENTURY since 1970, food production has increased at twice that pace. Increased domestic per capita consumption of food (including changes in diets to include greater consumption of meats and processed foods) and growing international trade have been important contributing factors driving increased production of the farm sector. At the same time, the processing and distribution of U.S. farm products have become controlled by a much smaller number of highly integrated national and global firms than there used to be (Hendrickson and Heffernan, 2007). Demands by processers and retailers for consistent, high-quality products on a year-round basis have influenced patterns of technological innovation and structural change at the farm level. Government programs. U.S. agricultural policy was initiated during the Great De- pression to address low farm income. The U.S. Farm Bill is enacted every four to five years and has a major influence on land management decisions and choice of crops (Halloran and Archer, 2008). The Farm Bill’s commodity programs have had four major effects: (1) scale—total production or total acreage, (2) mix of commodities—which crops or livestock are grown or produced, (3) location—where crops or livestock are grown and produced, and (4) intensity—input use per acre for a specific crop-location combination or density of livestock production per acre (Frisvold, 2004). In addition to the commodity programs, the Farm Bill has provisions for subsidies and technical assistance for conservation, and for nutritional programs and food buying assistance for lower income consumers. Research and development. Many technological innovations that accelerated growth in productivity came from agricultural experiment stations and colleges of agriculture in land grant universities. Innovations in information and marketing technology also facili- tated farmers’ adoption of new production methods (Gardner, 2002). The technological de- velopment and innovations were induced and supported by complementary government farm agricultural policies. An example is the large public investments in infrastructure development—for instance, development of water resources for irrigation, which vastly improved the ability to provide food and fiber in arid regions. As a direct result of those taxpayer-supported programs, farmlands that receive subsidized irrigation grew to almost 40 million acres by 1970 (Cochrane, 1979). U.S. AGRICULTURE TODAY While the overall trends in U.S. commercial agriculture have been toward fewer, larger, and more specialized farms, the farm sector remains diverse (Hoppe et al., 2007). Using census data, researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have identified several important clusters of farm “types” in the United States (Box 2-1). The importance of each farm type across a wide range of indicators is summarized in Table 2-1. As a result, the management practices used on many different types of U.S. farms will each contribute to the overall sustainability performance of the U.S. farm sector. In addition, efforts to assess and improve the sustainability of U.S. farming are likely to require distinctive strategies appropriate for different types of farms. The data in Table 2-1 indicate the smallest family farms in the United States (those with sales under $100,000) represent over 80 percent of total farm numbers, but produce less than 10 percent of total farm sales. Because a farm is defined in the Census of Agriculture as any operation that sold or could have sold more than $1,000 worth of agricultural products, many of those small farm operators might not even consider themselves to be farmers, and most of those farms are run as recreational or lifestyle farms by people who rely mainly on off-farm income or who are retired. That group of small farms, however, still manages about a third of U.S. cropland and farmland.

OCR for page 43
 A PIVOTAL TIME IN AGRICULTURE B OX - F arm Typology Developed by the U.S. Department o f Agriculture Economic Research Service The U.S. farm sector is so diverse that statistics summarizing the sector as a whole can be misleading. The USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) has developed a classification typology to identify relatively homogenous subgroups of U.S. farms. The typology is based largely on farm sales, organizational structure, and the operator’s primary occupation. The farm classification developed by ERS focuses on the “family farm,” or any farm organized as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or family corporation. Family farms exclude farms organized as nonfamily corporations or cooperatives and farms with hired managers. Small Family Farms (sales less than $0,000) • imited-resource. Farms with gross sales less than $100,000 in 2003 and less than $105,000 in 2004. L Operators of limited-resource farms must also have received low household income in both 2003 and 2004. Household income is considered low in a given year if it is less than the poverty level for a family of four, or it is less than half the county median household income. Operators may report any major occupation except hired manager. • etirement. Small farms whose operators report they are retired (excludes limited-resource farms oper- R ated by retired farmers). • esidential/lifestyle. Small farms whose operators report a major occupation other than farming R (excludes limited-resource farms with operators who report nonfarm work as their major occupation). • arming-occupation. Farms whose operators report farming as their major occupation (excludes F limited-resource farms whose operators report farming as their major occupation). Low-sales. Gross sales of less than $100,000. Medium-sales. Gross sales between $100,000 and $249,999. Large-Scale Family Farms (sales of $0,000 or more) • Large family farms. Farms with sales between $250,000 and $499,999. • Very large family farms. Farms with sales of $500,000 or more. Nonfamily Farms • onfamily farms. Farms organized as nonfamily corporations and cooperatives, as well as farms N operated by hired managers. Also includes farms held in estates or trusts. SOURCE: USDA-ERS (2000). The mid-sized family farms (sales between $100,000 and $500,000) are examples of the prototypical “family farm” that has captured much of the public imagination and public policy debates over the future of American agriculture (Browne et al., 1992). According to the 2007 census, these mid-sized farms represented just under 10 percent of all U.S. farms, produced 16.5 percent of all farm sales, and managed another quarter of the nation’s farm- land and nearly 30 percent of its cropland. Small and mid-sized family farms together owned two-thirds of the total value of farmland, buildings, and equipment and managed roughly 60 percent of all U.S. farmland and cropland in 2007. Therefore, they will continue to play an important role in efforts to improve the environmental footprint of agriculture, and their experiences and activities will continue to shape the social and economic well-being of farm families and agricul- tural communities. Interestingly, the proportion of small and mid-size operations that have chosen to participate in federal land conservation programs is larger than that of

OCR for page 43
TABLE - Farm Typology Class and the Relative Contribution of Each Class to Various Farm Indicators in 2007 0 Farm Typology Class Small Family Farms (Sales < $250,000) Large Family Farms (Sales $250,000+) Large Family Very Large Limited- Residential- Farming- Farming-Occup. Farms Family Non- Resource Retirement Lifestyle Occup. (Sales ($100,000– ($250,000– Farms Family Indicator Farms Farms Farms < $100,000) $249,999) $499,999) ($500,000+) Farms (Percent of U.S. Total) Farms 14.0 20.7 36.4 11.7 4.5 3.9 4.6 4.1 Value of Productiona 0.9 2.3 3.7 2.2 5.8 10.7 54.3 22.9 Total Government Payments 3.3 9.9 12.1 7.2 11.0 16.1 33.1 7.4 Production Expenses 1.7 3.2 5.8 3.2 5.4 9.5 48.6 22.5 Net Cash Farm Income –1.3 1.4 –1.2 0.8 7.4 13.9 60.5 18.4 Value of Farm Assetsb 5.9 11.8 18.1 8.9 8.4 11.5 25.2 10.3 Hired Farm Workers 3.5 7.6 11.7 6.9 6.2 8.4 34.1 21.6 Farmland 4.6 9.7 13.1 9.5 11.3 13.3 22.9 15.6 Cropland 3.6 8.0 11.0 7.4 11.5 16.6 34.0 7.9 Irrigated Land 1.5 3.0 4.6 3.8 7.4 13.1 50.6 16.0 Conservation Program Landc 7.5 26.1 26.6 11.6 6.3 5.8 7.6 8.5 Crop Insurance Acresd 1.2 2.8 5.0 4.8 13.2 21.0 44.3 7.6 Organic Farms 16.4 12.1 27.3 19.6 8.1 4.6 4.9 7.2 Organically Certified Land 6.0 6.5 11.8 13.4 16.3 15.2 19.4 11.3 Organic Produce Sales 1.5 1.7 3.2 4.3 9.0 10.5 41.6 28.1 aMarket value of agricultural product sales. bCombined value of land, buildings, machinery, and equipment. cAcres enrolled in Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, and farmable wetlands programs. dAcres enrolled in crop insurance programs. SOURCE: 2007 Census of Agriculture.

OCR for page 43
 A PIVOTAL TIME IN AGRICULTURE large operations. Eighty-four percent of all land in federal land conservation programs is managed by small and mid-sized farms. Small and mid-sized farms received 88 percent of U.S. total government payments for conservation programs in 2006 (Hoppe et al., 2008). In addition, 70 percent of organically certified land in the United States was managed by small and mid-sized farms in 2007 (although they accounted for only 30 percent of total organic product sales). In contrast to the small and mid-sized farms, million-dollar farms—that is, those with annual sales of at least $1 million—accounted for nearly half of U.S. farm product sales in 2002, even though there were only about 35,000 of them. They represent only 2 percent of all U.S. farms (Hoppe et al., 2008). Most million-dollar farms were operated as family businesses, and many reflect joint operations that support multiple family members and households. These types of farms particularly dominate the value of U.S. production of high-valued specialty crops (72 percent), dairy products (59 percent), hogs (58 percent), poultry (55 percent), and beef (52 percent). In some crops, production is concentrated. For example “[d]ata on acres harvested [obtained] from the 2002 Census of Agriculture suggest that some specialty crops occur on a relatively small number of farms. For example, the 58 largest producers of head lettuce (out of 830 total producers) in 2002—each harvesting at least 1000 acres of the crop accounted for 65 percent of the total acreage in head lettuce. As another example, the 77 largest broccoli producers (out of 2,493 total producers)—each with at least 500 harvested acres of the crop—accounted for 69 percent of the total harvest acres” (Hoppe et al., 2008, p. 34). Because of economies of size, and as illustrated in Figure 2-5, those large farms tend to have profit margins that give them a competitive edge when compared to similar, but smaller farms. The million-dollar farms can take better advantage than the small farms of technological changes, economic and financial innovations, business management prin- ciples, and coordination with suppliers and processors (Gray and Boehlje, 2007). Relatively few of the million-dollar farms specialize in crops that are covered by Farm Bill commodity programs, although the 44 percent of these farms that did participate in FIGURE - Operating profit margin, by sales class in 2006. 2-5.eps SOURCE: USDA, Economic Research Service, 2006 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, Phase bitmap III (as cited in Hoppe et al., 2008).

OCR for page 43
 TOWARD SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS IN THE 21ST CENTURY commodity programs received a total of 16 percent of all commodity program payments. The million-dollar farms account for 62 percent of all U.S. farm products produced under contracts with processors and other end buyers. Very large farms were somewhat less likely to participate in federal conservation programs than mid-sized farms. In 2006, 6 percent of total government conservation spending was distributed to the million-dollar farms (Hoppe et al., 2008). Another important form of agricultural diversity in the United States becomes appar- ent when examining the acreage planted to various crops or used for livestock production. Efforts to address the sustainability of U.S. agriculture will need to confront the distinctive opportunities and challenges associated with production of different types of commodities. The most commonly raised commodities in U.S. agriculture are beef cattle, horses, and for- ages (each raised by more than a quarter of U.S. farms). However, the most economically important commodities—grains, poultry, dairy products, and specialty crops—are typi- cally raised on a small fraction of U.S. farms (Table 2-2). Those commodities also represent the production systems that use most of the energy, fertilizers, agrichemicals, and hired labor in the United States. From a landscape perspective, most U.S. cropland is planted to Relative Importance of Different Commodities in U.S. Agriculture, 2002 TABLE - Percentage of U.S. Total Farms Raising Farm Sales from U.S. Harvested Commodity Type Commodity Commodity Cropland Livestock Beef cows 37.4 22.5 na Horses 25.5 0.7 na Sheep and goats 7.7 0.3 na Poultry 4.6 11.9 na Milk cows 4.3 10.1 na Hogs and pigs 3.7 6.2 na Crops Forages (all) 41.6 3.0 21.2 Grains and Oilseeds (any) 22.8 19.9 66.7 Corn grain 16.4 22.5 Soybean 14.9 23.9 Wheat 8.0 15.0 Corn silage 4.9 2.2 Oats 3.0 0.7 Barley 1.2 1.3 Rice 0.4 1.1 Fruit, Nuts, and Berries 6.2 6.9 1.9 Vegetables and Potatoes 3.0 6.4 3.0 Nursery/Greenhouse 2.6 7.3 0.3 Tobacco 2.7 0.8 0.1 Cotton 1.2 2.0 4.1 NOTES: Percent of farms raising each commodity = Number of farms reporting inventories of each livestock spe- cies or number of farms reporting acreage of each crop/Total number of farms in the United States. Percent of U.S. farm sales by commodity = Sales of each commodity/Total U.S. farm sales. Percent of U.S. harvested cropland = Percent of harvested acres in each crop/Percent of all U.S. harvested cropland.

OCR for page 43
 A PIVOTAL TIME IN AGRICULTURE corn, soybean, forage crops, and wheat. Efforts to significantly increase cropping diversity, change tillage practices, or reduce nonpoint source pollution from cropping activities will need to emphasize those commodity production systems. The geography of U.S. agriculture is shaped by a range of biophysical, economic, and demographic factors that vary widely by region. Researchers at USDA demonstrate the landscape diversity by combining data on county-level farm characteristics with data on natural resource conditions, such as areas with similar physiographic, soil, and climatic traits. (For maps and definitions, see USDA-ERS, 2009c.) They identified nine major “farm resource regions” in the United States (Heimlich, 2000). Figure 2-6 describes these regions and highlights the importance of them, the combination of which accounts for almost half of U.S. farms, 60 percent of the value of production, and 44 percent of U.S. cropland. The three regions are the “heartland” region in the corn belt, where cash grain and cattle and hog production dominates; the “fruitful rim” along the Pacific coast, southern Texas, and Florida where large farms are concentrated and fruit, vegetable, nursery, and cotton pro- duction dominates; and the “northern crescent,” a traditional dairy and cash grain region. Farm commodity systems and production practices often differ markedly across the vari- ous farm resource regions in the United States. FIGURE - Farm resource regions in the United States. 2-6.eps SOURCE: USDA-ERS (Heimlich, 2000). bitmap

OCR for page 43
 TOWARD SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS IN THE 21ST CENTURY suggested that modern plant breeding has been able to nearly triple the per-acre yield of grains, vegetables, and fruits, but that the increases in size and yield have diluted the crops’ nutritional quality and flavor. He reviewed published literature and suggested that the concentrations of essential minerals such as zinc and iron in fruits, grain, and vegetables have been declining over time. Other than Halweil’s metaanalysis, most studies on nutri- tional quality and flavor of crops focus on the effect of cultivar (Koudela and Petkikova, 2007, 2008) and farming practices (Magkos et al., 2003; Mäder et al., 2007) or storage and processing of produce on those qualities. Pesticide residue in food is a concern of many consumers (Tucker et al., 2006), even though the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been monitoring pesticide residue in food since 1993. FDA concluded that levels of pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply are overwhelmingly in compliance with EPA’s permitted pesticide uses and tolerances (FDA, 2009). Given the level of compliance with respect to pesticide use, a more serious food safety concern appears to be food-borne illnesses. Mead et al. (1999) estimated that food-borne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year. More than 200 known diseases are transmit- ted through food and contamination of food-borne pathogens that can occur in various stages of production and processing (Oliver et al., 2009). Food safety begins with the soil, plant, or animal. Manure is a principal source of enteric pathogens on the farm (Doyle and Erickson, 2008). Fecal contamination of crops and of animal products at harvest can spread pathogenic organisms to humans. Enteric pathogens from parent flocks of poultry can be transmitted to progeny (Methner et al., 1995; Cox et al., 2000), as in the case of eggs. There- fore, food safety concerns need to be addressed in ways that consider not only postharvest handling and processing, but also how food is produced on the farm. Food Security Concerns Although the U.S. farm sector consistently produces vastly more crop and livestock products than required to meet the basic nutritional needs of U.S. citizens, a significant number of Americans still suffer from malnutrition or hunger each year. The USDA Eco- nomic Research Service (ERS), for example, estimates that 11.1 percent of U.S. households (or 13 million households) are food insecure in that they do not have enough access to food at all times for an active healthy life for all household members (Nord et al., 2008). In addi- tion, an estimated 833 million people in developing countries are considered food insecure (Shapouri et al., 2009). While production of an adequate amount of food is a necessary prerequisite to solv- ing food insecurity (by ensuring a sufficient supply of food products and by keeping the cost of food down), most scholars argue that other factors are important contributors to the problem. Specifically, many households lack sufficient income to afford to buy even low-priced foods. Although farm production cost affects the price of food, it is one of many components of food price in the market place. Some households live in so-called “food deserts” that do not have ready access to grocery stores or other sources of balanced, fresh, and nutritious food products. Setting up farmers’ markets in those neighborhoods could potentially alleviate that problem (IOM and NRC, 2009). Domestic and international food insecurity is also aggravated by volatility in farm commodity prices associated with climate variability, shifts in global market supply and demand conditions, and competition for agricultural commodities from the bioenergy sector.

OCR for page 43
 A PIVOTAL TIME IN AGRICULTURE Animal Welfare Concerns Consumers’ concern about animal welfare is not a new phenomenon, but pressures from consumer groups and supply chain management companies have prompted in- creased attention on animal health and welfare (Mitchell, 2001; Johnson, 2009). Concerns about animal welfare include animal housing, access to food and water, health (and disease management), and behavior (Keeling, 2005).There is an increasing awareness among con- sumer groups about some animal-rearing practices (Petherick, 2007) and concerns among animal scientists of tradeoffs in animal health and welfare that are associated with alterna- tive systems (Mench, 2008), such as in organic systems where antibiotic use is prohibited. Community Well-Being The idea that rural towns surrounded by small family farms provide the bedrock of strong democratic values and community life has been a powerful image in American culture (Wirzba, 2003). Similarly, as society has become less rural and agrarian, and as ag- ricultural operations have increased in size and scale, there have been repeated concerns expressed about possible negative effects on the social and economic welfare of communi- ties (Lobao and Meyer, 2001; Berry, 2004). Observers have linked the process of farm con- solidation, increased specialization and mechanization, and growing vertical integration to the slow erosion of traditional rural community life and the decline of farm-dependent community economies. More recently, scholars have pointed to the consolidation of the larger agrifood system and the increased importance of vertical economic relationships (as opposed to horizontal linkages among local firms) as a source of some community problems. Most empirical research on this topic has focused on comparing the social and economic linkages between large versus small farms and their surrounding communities. Lobao and Stofferahn (2008, p. 223) recently reviewed more than 50 empirical studies of the impact of industrialized farming systems on local communities. They note that socioeconomic impacts can reflect both direct effects “through the quantity of jobs produced and the earnings quality of those jobs; by the extent to which these farms purchase inputs and sell outputs locally” and indirect effects where the structure of the farm labor force and farm purchasing patterns can affect “total community employment, earnings, and income (for example, economic multiplier effects); the local poverty rate; and the level of income inequality.” They report that the majority of studies (57 percent) found negative effects of industrialized agriculture on community well-being, 25 percent found mixed impacts, and 18 percent found no sig- nificant impacts. Generally speaking, individual-level studies and regional models demonstrate that the net effect of farm size changes on local farm-related economic activity appears to de- pend more on trends in the overall volume of farming activity (for example, total regional livestock inventories or acreages devoted to certain crops) than on the size distribution of farms per se. In addition, the direct and indirect economic impacts of farm input purchases from and sales to local businesses appear to generate less total aggregate economic activity than the total amount of net farm income among farm households (Dobbs and Cole, 1992). That evidence suggests that maintaining farm profitability is a critical link to ensuring that farm dollars circulate in the local economy. By contrast, in a study of dairy farms in Austria, Kirner and Kratochvil (2006) found that larger farms generated more net income per unpaid family work unit, but argued that smaller farms exhibited greater enterprise diversification and as a result generally contributed more to the regional economy. Despite

OCR for page 43
 TOWARD SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS IN THE 21ST CENTURY disputes about how to achieve strong community agricultural connections, there is a grow- ing interest in finding ways to maintain a local and robust agricultural sector that has strong community ties. Community Health and Quality of Life Although some farming operations can improve the aesthetics of the landscape, oth- ers such as large-scale confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) can negatively affect the health and quality of life in nearby neighborhoods (Wing et al., 2008). Wing and Wolf (2000) found residents in the vicinity of hog operations in eastern North Carolina reported increased occurrences of headaches, runny nose, sore throat, excessive coughing, diarrhea, and burning eyes as compared to residents of the community with no intensive livestock operations. Quality of life, as indicated by the number of times residents could not open their windows or go outside even in nice weather, was similar in the control and the com- munity in the vicinity of the cattle operation but greatly reduced among residents near the hog operation. Respiratory and mucous membrane effects were consistent with the results of studies of occupational exposures among swine confinement-house workers and previ- ous findings for neighbors of intensive swine operations. Horrigan et al. (2002) suggested that the proliferation of large-scale confinement animal agriculture creates environmental and public health concerns, including pollution from the high concentration of animal wastes and the extensive use of antibiotics, which may com- promise their effectiveness in medical use. Using antibiotics to treat animals with clinical infections has undoubtedly contributed to improving the health and welfare of farm ani- mals over the years. Therapeutic use of antibiotics reduces the economic losses endured by farmers as a result of animal sickness and death. Antibiotics have been used subtherapeuti- cally to promote growth, improve feed efficiency, and reduce incidence of certain diseases (Doyle, 2001). The effect of antibiotics as a growth promoter of agricultural animals was discovered in 1940s (Castanon, 2007). FDA approved the use of certain antibiotics in animal feed in 1951. The antimicrobial drugs permitted for use in food animal production represent all major classes of clinically important drugs (Silbergeld et al., 2008). The accumulation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria as a result of antibiotic use in agricul- tural animals has been documented (Teuber, 2001). A preliminary study by Chander et al. (2008) showed that antibiotic-resistant bacteria are more prevalent in turkey farms that use antibiotics subtherapeutically compared to those that do not use antibiotics. The European Union withdrew approval for antibiotics as growth promoters in poultry feeds out of concern for development of antimicrobial resistance and about transference of antibiotic resistance genes from animal to human microbiota (Castanon, 2007). SYSTEMS APPROACH TO IMPROVING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF AGRICULTURE U.S. agriculture has been meeting the demands of higher production (Cassman and Liska, 2007), but with unintended costs as discussed above. At the same time, land-grant university research and farmer or practitioner experiences have improved the knowledge and understanding of how to improve yield and reduce agriculture’s impact on the envi- ronment and resource use. The accumulated knowledge has led to actions being taken that suggest promising directions to pursue for enhanced sustainability in farming systems. The research on the application of approaches that improve sustainability of agricul- ture suggests that agriculture has the potential to meet the demand of food, feed, and fiber; reduce its environmental footprint; and address other social concerns such as animal wel-

OCR for page 43
 A PIVOTAL TIME IN AGRICULTURE fare and labor justice, but gaps in understanding remain. For example, how the collective actions of a number of farms could improve sustainability on a landscape scale is not well studied. Filling those gaps of understanding will require innovative new approaches, in particular in the realms of complex systems science and management as applied to agro- ecosystems, and a better understanding of economic and social outcomes of the farming approaches. SUMMARY U.S. agriculture has celebrated much success in the last 50 years as farmers continue to increase productivity on about the same acreage of farmland and increase energy efficiency in their production systems. However, agricultural sustainability is characterized by not only productivity and efficiency, but also by its impact on the environment and natural re- source base, its economic vitality, and the quality of life of farmers and society as a whole. Although many farming practices, technologies, and approaches have improved one or two aspects of sustainability, they might have unintended negative effects on the other aspects of sustainability. As awareness on the importance of balancing the four sustainability goals increases, U.S. agriculture is at a pivotal point that can change the trajectory of farming toward improved sustainability by increasing understanding of the interactions and net impact of combinations of practices and approaches at the farm level and the collective actions of a number of farms on the landscape level. REFERENCES Arikan, O.A., W. Mulbry, and C. Rice. 2009. Management of antibiotic residues from agricultural sources: use of composting to reduce chlortetracycline residues in beef manure from treated animals. Journal of Hazardous Materials 164(2–3):483–489. American Farmland Trust. 2002. Farming on the edge: sprawling development threatens America’s best farmland. Washington, D.C.: Author. Andrejczak, M. 2009. Pacific ethanol units joins others in bankruptcy court. Market Watch, May 18, 2009. Aneja, V.P., W.H. Schlesinger, and J.W. Erisman. 2008. Farming pollution. Nature Geoscience 1(7):409–411. Arcury, T.A., J.G. Grzywacz, D.B. Barr, J. Tapia, H.Y. Chen, and S.A. Quandt. 2007. Pesticide urinary metabolite levels of children in eastern North Carolina farmworker households. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(8): 1254–1260. ASABE (American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers). 2005. Manure production and characteristics. ASAE Standards (March):20. Baker, A., and S. Zahniser. 2006. Ethanol reshapes the corn market. Amber Waves 4(2):30–35. Ball, E. 2005. Ag productivity drives output growth. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/June 05/findings/AgProductivity.htm. Accessed on August 31, 2009. Batie, S. 2008. The sustainability of U.S. cropland soils. In Perspectives on Sustainable Resources in America, R.A. Sedjo, ed. Washington, D.C.: RFF Press. Berry, W. 2004. The Unsettling of America. 3rd edition. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Blackburn, H.D. 2006. National animal germplasm program: challenges and opportunities for poultry genetic resources. Poultry Science 85:210–215. Bricker, S.B., C.G. Clement, D.E. Pirhalla, S.P. Orlando, and D.R.G. Farrow. 1999. National estuarine eutrophication assessment: effects of nutrient enrichment in the nation’s estuaries. Silver Spring, Md.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Special Projects Office and the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. Brown, P.L., A.D. Halvorsen, F.H. Siddoway, H.F. Mayland, and M.R. Miller. 1982. Saline-seep diagnosis, control, and reclamation. Available at http://www.wsi.nrcs.usda.gov/products/W2Q/downloads/Salinity/Saline_ Seeps.pdf. Accessed on February 18, 2010. Browne W.P., J.R. Skees, L.E. Swanson, P.B. Thompson, and L.J. Unnevehr. 1992. Sacred Cows and Hot Potatoes: Agrarian Myths in Agricultural Policy. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. California Department of Finance. 2007. Population projections by race/ethnicity for California and its coun-

OCR for page 43
 TOWARD SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ties 2000–2050. Available at http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Projections/P1/ P1.asp. Accessed on June 8, 2009. Carter, T.R., M. Hulme, J.F. Crossley, S. Malyshev, M.G. New, M.E. Schlesinger, and H. Uomenvirta. 2000. Climate change in the 21st century: interim characterizations based on the new IPCC emissions scenarios. The Finnish Environment 433:148. Cassman, K.G., and A.J. Liska. 2007. Food and fuel for all: realistic or foolish? Biofuels Bioproducts & Biorefining- Biofpr 1(1):18–23. CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). 1999. Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply. Ames, Iowa: Author. Castanon, J.I.R. 2007. History of the use of antibiotic as growth promoters in European poultry feeds. Poultry Science 86(11):2466–2471. CENR (Committee on Environment and Natural Resources). 2000. Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Washington, D.C.: National Science and Technology Council. Chameides, B. 2009. Climate change: what is equivalent to “CO2 equivalents”? Available at http://www.nicholas. duke.edu/thegreengrok/co2equivalents. Accessed on February 19, 2010. Chander, Y., S.C. Gupta, K. Kumar, S.M. Goyall, and H. Murray. 2008. Antibiotic use and the prevalence of antibi- otic resistant bacteria on turkey farms. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 88(4):714–719. Cochrane, W. 1979. The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Press. Colaizzi, P.D., P.H. Gowda, T.H. Marek, and D.O. Porter. 2009. Irrigation in the Texas High Plains: a brief history and potential reductions in demand. Irrigation and Drainage 58(3):257–274. Collins, K. 2008. The role of biofuels and other factors in increasing farm and food prices. Available at http://www. foodbeforefuel.org/files/Role%20of%20Biofuels%206–19-08.pdf. Accessed on June 8, 2009. Coronado, G.D., B. Thompson, L. Strong, W.C. Griffith, and I. Islas. 2004. Agricultural task and exposure to organo- phosphate pesticides among farmworkers. Environmental Health Perspectives 112(2):142–147. Cox, N.A., M.E. Berrang, and J.A. Cason. 2000. Salmonella penetration of egg shells and proliferation in broiler hatching eggs—a review. Poultry Science 79(11):1571–1574. Cromartie, J., and S. Bucholtz. 2008. Defining the “rural” in rural America. Amber Waves 6(3):28–34. Das, R., A. Steege, S. Baron, J. Beckman, and R. Harrison. 2001. Pesticide-related illness among migrant farm work- ers in the United States. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 7(4):303–312. Day-Rubenstein, K., P. Heisey, R. Shoemaker, J. Sullivan, and G. Frisvold. 2005. Crop Genetic Resources: An Eco- nomic Appraisal. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Resource Service. Dennehy, K.F. 2000. 2009. High Plains regional ground-water study: U.S. Geological Survey fact sheet FS-091-00. Available at http://co.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/hpgw/factsheets/DENNEHYFS1.html. Accessed on August 12, 2009. Dewbre, J., C. Giner, W. Thompson, and M. Von Lampe. 2008. High food commodity prices: will they stay? Who will pay? Agricultural Economics 39(3):393–403. Diaz, R.J., and R. Rosenberg. 2008. Spreading dead zones and consequences of marine ecosystems. Science 321: 926–929. Dich, J., and K. Wiklund. 1998. Prostate cancer in pesticide applicators in Swedish agriculture. The Prostate 34: 100–112. Diffenbaugh, N.S., C.H. Krupke, M.A. White, and C.E. Alexander. 2008. Global warming presents new challenges for maize pest management. Environmental Research Letters 3(4). Dobbs, T.L., and J.D. Cole. 1992. Potential effects on rural economies of conversion to sustainable farming systems. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 7(1/2):70–80. Doering, O. 2008. Biofuel Implications for Agriculture and the Environment. Presentation to the Committee on March 27, 2008, in Kansas City, Missouri. Donner, S.D., and C.J. Kucharik. 2008. Corn-based ethanol production compromises goal of reducing nitrogen export by the Mississippi River. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:4513–4518. Donohue, M., and D.L. Cunningham. 2009. Effects of grain and oilseed prices on the costs of US poultry produc- tion. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 18(2):325–337. Doyle, M.E. 2001. Alternatives to antibiotic use for growth promotion in animal husbandry. Available at http://fri. wisc.edu/briefs/antibiot.pdf. Accessed on July 14, 2009. Doyle, M.P., and M.C. Erickson. 2008. Summer meeting 2007—the problems with fresh produce: an overview. Journal of Applied Microbiology 105(2):317–330. Easterling, W.E., P.K. Aggarwal, P. Batima, K.M. Brander, L. Erda, S.M. Howden, A. Kirilenko, J. Morton, J.-F. Soussana, J. Schmidhuber, and F.N. Tubiello. 2007. Food, fibre and forest products. In Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovern-

OCR for page 43
 A PIVOTAL TIME IN AGRICULTURE mental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J.V.D. Linden, and C.E. Hanson, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2009. Weekly all countries spot price FOB weighted by estimated export volume (dollars per barrel). Available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist_xls/WTOTWORLDw.xls. Accessed on June 30, 2009. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions. Washington, D.C.: Author. ———. 2007. Wadeable Streams Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation’s Streams. Washington, D.C.: Author. ———. 2008. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2006. Washington, D.C.: Author. Eskenazi, B., A.R. Marks, A. Bradman, K. Harley, D.B. Barr, C. Johnson, N. Morga, and N.A. Jewell. 2007. Organo- phosphate pesticide exposure and neurodevelopment in young Mexican-American children. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(5):792–798. Family Farm Alliance. 2007. Water supply in a changing climate—the perspective of family farmers and ranchers in the irrigated west. Available at http://familyfarmalliance.clubwizard.com/IMUpload/FFA%20Report2. pdf. Accessed on February 18, 2010. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1998. Biodiversity of food and agriculture. Available at http://www. fao.org/sd/epdirect/epre0040.htm. Accessed on February 19, 2010. ———. 2008. Soaring Food Prices: Facts, Perspectives, Impacts, and Actions Required. Rome: Author. Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tillman, S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne. 2008. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2009. Pesticide residue monitoring program FY2004–2006. Available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/Pesticides/ResidueMonitoring Reports/ucm125183.htm. Accessed on July 27, 2009. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., A. Mishra, R. Nehring, C. Hendricks, M. Southern, and A. Gregory. 2007. Off-farm Income, Technology Adoption, and Farm Economic Performance. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Friedland, W., L. Busch, F.H. Buttel, and A.P. Rudy, eds. 1991. Towards a New Political Economy of Agriculture. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Frisvold, G.B. 2004. How federal farm programs affect water use, quality and allocation among sectors. Water Resources Research 40:W12SO15. Fuglie, K.O., J.M. MacDonald, and E. Ball. 2007. Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Gardner, B.L. 2002. American Agriculture in the Twentieth Century: How It Flourished and What It Cost. Cam- bridge: Harvard University Press. Gasson, R., and A. Errington. 1993. The Farm Family Business. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Gehlhar, M., E. Dohlman, N. Brooks, A. Jerardo, and T. Vollrath. 2007. Global Growth, Macroeconomic Change, and U.S. Agricultural Trade. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Gilliom, R.J., J.E. Barbash, C.G. Crawford, P.A. Hamilton, J.D. Martin, N. Nakagaki, L.H. Nowell, J.C. Scott, P.E. Stackelberg, G.P. Thelin, and D.M. Wolock. 2006. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters: Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and Ground Water, 1992–2001. Reston, Va: U.S. Geological Survey. Glauber, J. 2008. Statement of Joseph Glauber, Chief Economist before the Committee on Energy and Natural Re- sources, United States Senate, on June 12, 2008. Available at http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/Glauber Testimony061208.pdf. Accessed on April 6, 2010. Goolsby, D.A., W.A. Battaglin, G.B. Lawrence, R.S. Artz, B.T. Aulenbach, R.P. Hooper, D.R. Keeney, and G.J. Stensland. 1999. Flux and Sources of Nutrients in the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin—topic 3. Silver Spring, Md.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. Gray, A.W., and M.D. Boehlje. 2007. The industrialization of agriculture: Implications for future policy. Available at http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/6712/2/wp070010.pdf. Accessed on February 19, 2010. Hallam, A., ed. 1993. Size, Structure, and the Changing Face of American Agriculture. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Halloran, J.M., and D.W. Archer. 2008. External economic drivers and US agricultural production systems. Renew- able Agriculture and Food Systems 23(4):296–303. Halweil, B. 2007. Still No Free Lunch: Nutrient Levels in U.S. Food Supply Eroded by Pursuit of High Yields. Boulder, Colo.: The Organic Center. Hart, J.F. 2003. The Changing Scale of American Agriculture. Charlottesville, Va.: University of Virginia Press. Harwood, R.R. 1994. Managing the living soil for human well-being. In Environment and Agriculture: Rethinking

OCR for page 43
 TOWARD SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS IN THE 21ST CENTURY Development Issues for the 21st Century, S.A. Breth, ed. Morrilton, Ark.: Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development. Hatfield, J., K. Boote, P. Fay, L. Hahn, C. Izaurralde, B.A. Kimball, T. Mader, J. Morgan, D. Ort, W. Polley, A. Thomson, and D. Wolfe. 2008. Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Hedlund, J.D., and S. Crow. 1994. Draft Material on Salinity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service Heimlich, R. 2000. Farm Resource Regions. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. ———. 2003. Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Hendrickson, M., and W. Heffernan. 2007. Concentration of agricultural markets. Available at http://www.nfu. org/wp-content/2007-heffernanreport.pdf. Accessed on December 11, 2009. Hill, J., E. Nelson, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and D. Tiffany. 2006. Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:11206–11210. Hoppe, R.A., P. Korb, E.J. O’Donoghue, and D.E. Banker. 2007. Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: Family Farm Report, 2007 Edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Hoppe, R.A., P. Korb, and D.E. Banker. 2008. Million-Dollar Farms in the New Century. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Horrigan, L., R. Lawrence, and P. Walker. 2002. How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(5):445–456. Hutson, S.S., N.L. Barber, J.F. Kenny, K.S. Linsey, D.S. Lumia, and M.A. Maupin. 2004. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000. Reston, Va.: U.S. Geological Survey. IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National Research Council). 2009. The Public Health Effects of Food Des- erts. Workshop Summary. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Available at http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/ 2006gl/vol4.html. Accessed on April 24, 2009. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: Author. Jackson-Smith, D., and J. Sharp. 2008. Farming in the urban shadow: supporting agriculture at the rural-urban interface. Rural Realities 2(4):1–12. Johnson, A.K. 2009. ASAS centennial paper: farm animal welfare science in the United States. Journal of Animal Science 87(6):2175–2179. Keeling, L.J. 2005. Healthy and happy: animal welfare as an integral part of sustainable agriculture. Ambio 34(4–5): 316–319. Kemper, N., H. Färber, D. Skutlarek, and J. Krieter. 2008. Analysis of antibiotic residues in liquid manure and leachate of dairy farms in Northern Germany. Agricultural Water Management 95(11):1288–1292. Kennedy, A.C., and R.I. Papendick. 1995. Microbial characteristics of soil quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conser- vation 50(3):243–248. Kirner, L., and R. Kratochvil. 2006. The role of farm size in the sustainability of dairy farming in Austria: an empiri- cal approach based on farm accounting data. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 28(4):105–123. Kirschenmann, F., G.W. Stevenson, F. Buttel, T.A. Lyson, and M. Duffy. 2008. Why worry about the agriculture of the middle. Pp. 3–22 in Food and the Mid-Level Farm, T.A. Lyson, G.W. Stevenson, and R. Welsh, eds. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Klein, L.R., and J.P. Reganold. 1997. Agricultural changes and farmland protection in western Washington. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 52(1):6–12. Kleinschmit, J. 2007. Biofueling Rural Development: Making the Case for Linking Biofuel Production to Rural Revitalization. Durham: University of New Hampshire. Knauss, T. 2009. Oswego County ethanol plant in bankruptcy. The Post-Standard, January 14, 2009. Kneese, A. 1986. Water resource constraints: the case of the Ogallala aquifer. In The Future of the North American Granary: Politics, Economics, and Resource Constraints in North American Agriculture, C.F. Runge, ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Koudela, M., and K. Petkikova. 2007. Nutritional composition and yield of endive cultivars—Cichorium endivia L. Horticultural Science 34(1):6–10. ———. 2008. Nutritional compositions and yield of sweet fennel cultivars—Foeniculum vulgare Mill. ssp vulgare var. azoricum (Mill.) Thell. Horticultural Science 35(1):1–6. Krauss, C. 2009. Valero Energy, the oil refiner, wins an auction for 7 ethanol plants. Available at http://www. nytimes.com/2009/03/19/business/energy-environment/19ethanol.html. Accessed on February 19, 2010.

OCR for page 43
 A PIVOTAL TIME IN AGRICULTURE Kumar, K., S. C. Gupta, et al. (2005). Antibiotic uptake by plants from soil fertilized with animal manure. Journal of Environmental Quality 34(6):2082–2085. Lal, R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304. Leibtag, E. 2008. Corn prices near record high, but what about food costs. Amber Waves 6(1):10–15. Lin, B-H., J.N. Variyam, J. Allshouse, and J. Cromartie. 2003. Food and Agricultural Commodity Consumption in the United States: Looking Ahead to 2020. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Lobao, L., and K. Meyer (2001). The great agricultural transition: crisis, change, and social consequences of twen- tieth century U.S. farming. Annual Review of Sociology 27:103–124. Lobao, L., and C. Stofferahn. 2008. The community effects of industrialized farming: social science research and challenges to corporate farming laws. Agriculture and Human Values 25(2):219–240. Lubowski, R.N., S. Bucholtz, R. Claassen, M. Roberts, J. Cooper, A. Gueorguieva, and R. Johansson. 2006. Envi- ronmental Effects of Agricultural Land Use. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Luckey, R.R., E.D. Gutentag, and J.B. Weeks. 1981. Water-Level and Saturated-Thickness Changes, Predevelop- ment to 1980, in the High Plains Aquifer in Parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-652, 2 sheets, scale 1:2,500,000. Lusk, J.L., and B.C. Briggeman. 2009. Food values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(1):184–196. MacDonald, J.A., and W.D. McBride. 2009. The Transformation of U.S. Livestock Agriculture: Scale, Efficiency, and Risks. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Mäder, P., D. Hahn, D. Dubois, L. Gunst, T. Alföldi, H. Bergmann, M. Oehme, R. Amadò, H. Schneider, U. Graf, A. Velimirov, A. Fließbach, and U. Niggli. 2007. Wheat quality in organic and conventional farming: results of a 21 year field experiment. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 87(10):1826–1835. Magkos, F., F. Arvaniti, and A. Zampelas. 2003. Organic food: nutritious food or food for thought? A review of the evidence. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 54(5):357–371. McBride, W. 1997. Change in U.S. Livestock Production, 1969–92. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agricul- ture Economic Research Service. Mead, P.S., L. Slutsker, V. Dietz, L.F. McCaig, J.S. Bresee, C. Shapiro, P.M. Griffin, and R.V. Tauxe. 1999. Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases 5(5):607–625. Mench, J.A. 2008. Scientific Basis for Improving Animal Welfare. Presentation to the Committee on August 6, 2008, in Washington, D.C. Methner, U., S. Alshabibi, and H. Meyer. 1995. Experimental oral infection of specific pathogen-free laying hens and cocks with Salmonella enteritidis strains. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series B-Zentralblatt Fur Veterinar- medizin Reihe B-Infectious Diseases and Veterinary Public Health 42(8):459–469. Miranowski, J., D. Swenson, L. Eathington, and A. Rosburg. 2008. Biofuel, the rural economy, and farm structure. Paper read at Farm Foundation Conference Transition to a Bioeconomy: Risk, Infrastructure and Industry Evolution, at Berkeley, California, on June 24, 2008. Available at http://www.farmfoundation.org/news/ articlefiles/365-John%20Miranowski.pdf. Accessed on January 28, 2010. Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force. 2001. Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Washington, D.C.: Author. Mitchell, L. 2001. Impact of consumer demand for animal welfare on global trade. In Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade, A. Regmi, ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Murray, B.C., B.A. McCarl, and H.C. Lee. 2004. Estimating leakage from forest carbon sequestration programs. Land Economics 80(1):109–124. NAS-NAE-NRC (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and National Research Coun- cil). 2009. Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass: Technological Status, Costs, and Environmen- tal Impacts. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. NBB (National Biodiesel Board). 2007. National Biodiesel Board Annual Report 2007. Jefferson City, Mo.: Author. NCGA (National Corn Growers Association). 2008. World of Corn. Chesterfield, Mo.: Author. Nizeyimana, E.L., G.W. Peterson, M.L. Imhoff, H.R. Sinclair, Jr., S.W. Waltman, D.S. Reed-Margetam, E.R. Levine, and J.M. Russo. 2001. Assessing the impact of land conservation to urban uses on soils with different pro- ductivity levels in the USA. Soil Science Society of America Journal 65:391–402. Nolan, B.T., K.J. Hitt, and B.C. Ruddy. 2002. Probability of nitrate contamination of recently recharged ground- waters in the conterminous United States. Environmental Science & Technology 36(10):2138–2145. Nord, M., M. Andrews, and S. Carlson. 2008. Household Food Security in the United States, 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.

OCR for page 43
0 TOWARD SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS IN THE 21ST CENTURY Norris, P., and B.J. Deaton. 2001. Understanding the demand for farmland preservation: implications for Michi- gan policies. In Staff paper 2001–18. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural Economics. Notter, D.R. 1999. The importance of genetic populations diversity in livestock populations of the future. Journal of Animal Science 77(1):61–69. NRC (National Research Council). 1972. Genetic Vulnerability of Major Crops. Washington, D.C.: National Acad- emy Press. ———. 1993a. Soil and Water Quality. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1993b. Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 2008. Understanding and Responding to Climate Change—Highlights of National Academies Reports. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Oliver, S.P., D.A. Patel, T.R. Callaway, and M.E. Torrence. 2009. ASAS centennial paper: developments and future outlook for preharvest food safety. Journal of Animal Science 87(1):419–437. Patterson, D.T., J.K. Westbrook, R.J.V. Joyce, P.D. Lingren, and J. Rogasik. 1999. Weeds, insects, and diseases. Cli- matic Change 43(4):711–727. Pearce, N., and D. McLean. 2005. Agricultural exposures and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 31(Suppl. 1):18–25. Petherick, J.C. 2007. Spatial requirements of animals: allometry and beyond. Journal of Veterinary Behavior-Clinical Applications and Research 2(6):197–204. Picone, C., and D. Van Tassel. 2002. Agriculture and biodiversity loss: industrial agriculture. In Life on Earth: An Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Ecology, and Evolution, N. Eldredge, ed. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. Pimentel, D., and M. Pimentel. 2003. Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. American Society for Clinical Nutrition 78(3):660S–663S. Pineiro, G., E.G. Jobbagy, J. Baker, B.C. Murray, and R.B. Jackson. 2009. Set-asides can be better climate investment than corn ethanol. Ecological Applications 19(2):277–282. Pineyro-Nelson, A., J. Van Heerwaarden, H.R. Perales, J.A. Serratos-Hernandez, A. Rangel, M.B. Hufford, P. Gepts, A. Garay-Arroyo, R. Rivera-Bustamante, and E.R. Alvarez-Buylla. 2009. Transgenes in Mexican maize: mo- lecular evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations. Molecular Ecology 18(4):750–761. Plucknett, D.L., N.J. Smith, J.T. Williams, and N.M. Anishetty. 1987. Genebanks and the World’s Food. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and D. Scavia. 2002. Beyond science into policy: Gulf of Mexico hypoxia and the Mis- sissippi River. BioScience 52:129–142. Reganold, J.P., and M.J. Singer. 1984. Comparing farm production input/output ratios using two land classifica- tion systems. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 39(1):47–53. Ribaudo, M., and R. Johansson. 2006. Water quality: impacts of agriculture. In Agricultural Resources and Envi- ronmental Indicators, 2006 Edition / EIB–16. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Ribeiro, N.M., A.C. Pinto, C.M. Quintella, G.O. da Rocha, L.S.G. Teixeira, L.L.N. Guarieiro, M.D. Rangel, M.C.C. Veloso, M.J.C. Rezende, R.S. da Cruz, A.M. de Oliveira, E.A. Torres, and J.B. de Andrade. 2007. The role of ad- ditives for diesel and diesel blended (ethanol or biodiesel) fuels: a review. Energy & Fuels 21(4):2433–2445. Rosegrant, M.W. 2008. Biofuels and grain prices: impacts and policy responses. Available at http://beta.irri.org/ solutions/images/publications/papers/ifpri_biofuels_grain_prices.pdf. Accessed on June 8, 2009. Rosenzweig, C., F.N. Tubiello, R. Goldberg, E. Mills, and J. Bloomfield. 2002. Increased crop damage in the US from excess precipitation under climate change. Global Environmental Change—Human and Policy Dimensions 12(3):197–202. RTI International. 2007. GIPSA livestock and meat marketing study. Volume 3: Fed cattle and beef industries. Available at http://archive.gipsa.usda.gov/psp/issues/livemarketstudy/LMMS_Vol_3.pdf. Accessed on July 24, 2009. Russelle, M.P., M.H. Entz, and A.J. Franzluebbers. 2007. Reconsidering integrated crop-livestock systems in North America. Agronomy Journal 99:325–224. Sampson, R.N. 1981. Farmland or Wasteland: A Time to Choose. Emmaus, Pa.: Rodale Press. San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program. 1990. A Management Plan for Agricultural Subsurface Drainage and Re- lated Problems on the Westside San Joaquin Valley. U.S. Department of Interior and California Resources Agency. Sassenrath, G.F., P. Heilman, E. Lusche, G.L. Bennett, G. Fitzgerald, P. Klesius, W. Tracy, J.R. Williford, and P.V. Zimba. 2008. Technology, complexity and change in agricultural production systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(4):285–295. Scavia, D., and K.A. Donnelly. 2007. Reassessing hypoxia forecasts for the Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Science & Technology 41(23):8111–8117.

OCR for page 43
 A PIVOTAL TIME IN AGRICULTURE Scavia, D., N.N. Rabalais, R.E. Turner, D. Justic, and W.J. Wiseman, Jr. 2003. Predicting the response of Gulf of Mex- ico hypoxia to variations in Mississippi River nitrogen load. Limnology and Oceanography 48(3):951–956. Scavia, D., D. Justic, and V.J. Bierman. 2004. Reducing hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico: advice from three models. Estuaries 27(3):419–425. Schillinger, W.F., A.C. Kennedy, and D.L. Young. 2007. Eight years of annual no-till cropping in Washington’s winter wheat-summer fallow region. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 120(2–4):345–358. Schjonning, P., S. Elmholt, and B.T. Christensen. 2004. Managing Soil Quality: Challenges in Modern Agriculture. Cambridge: CABI Publishing. Schnepf, R. 2004. Energy Use in Agriculture—Background and Issues. CRS Report for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and T.-H. Yu. 2008. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land use change. Science 319:1238–1240. Selfa, T., L. Kulcsar, R. Goe, and G. Middendorf. 2009. Biofuels bonanza? Exploring community perceptions of the promises and perils of biofuels production. Available at http://sustainability.nationalacademies.org/pdfs/ Selfa072909.pdf. Accessed on February 19, 2010. Shapouri, S., S.R. Rosen, B. Meade, and F. Gale. 2009. Economic Research Service Food Security Assessment 2008–09 Outlook Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Sharratt, B.S., and D. Lauer. 2006. Particulate matter concentration and air quality affected by windblown dust in the Columbia plateau. Journal of Environmental Quality 35:2011–2016. Shoemaker, R., D. McGranahan, and W. McBride. 2006. Agricultural and rural communities are resilient to high energy costs. Amber Waves 4(2):16–21. Shore, L.S., and A. Pruden, eds. 2009. Hormones and Pharmaceuticals Generated by Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. New York: Springer. Silbergeld, E.K., J. Graham, and L.B. Price. 2008. Industrial food animal production, antimicrobial resistance, and human health. Annual Review of Public Health 29:151–169. Simpson, T.W., A.N. Sharpley, R.W. Howarth, H.W. Paerl, and K.R. Mankin. 2008. The new gold rush: fueling ethanol production while protecting water quality. Journal of Environmental Quality 37(2):318–324. Strange, M. 1988. Family Farming: A New Economic Vision. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Swenson, D. 2009. Biofuels and rural development. Available at http://sustainability.nationalacademies.org/ pdfs/Swenson.pdf. Accessed on February 19, 2010. Sylvan, J.B., Q. Dortch, D.M. Nelson, A.F. Maier Brown, W. Morrison, and J.W. Ammerman. 2006. Phosphorus limits phytoplankton growth on the Louisiana shelf during the period of hypoxia formation. Environmental Science & Technology 40(24):7548–7553. Teuber, M. 2001. Veterinary use and antibiotic resistance. Current Opinion in Microbiology 4(5):493–499. The Associated Press. 2009. Owner of Nebraska ethanol plant files bankruptcy. July 20, 2009. Tilman, D. 1999. Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: the need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96(11):5995–6000. Tilman, D., K. Cassman, P.A. Matson, R. Naylor, and S. Polasky. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677. Tucker, M., S.R. Whaley, and J.S. Sharp. 2006. Consumer perceptions of food-related risks. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 41(2):135–146. Turner, R.E., N.N. Rabalais, E.M. Swenson, M. Kasprzak, and T. Romaire. 2005. Summer hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico and its prediction from 1978 to 1995. Marine Environmental Research 59:65–77. U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. The 2009 population estimate for the United States is 307,006,550. Available at http:// factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_submenuId=population_0&_sse=o n. Accessed on Febru- ary 11, 2010. USDA-ERS (U. S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service). 2000. ERS Farm Typology for a Diverse Agricultural Sector. Washington, D.C.: Author. ———. 2004. Irrigation and water use briefing room. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/WaterUse/. Accessed on June 5, 2009. ———. 2005a. Food CPI, price and expenditures: food expenditures by families and individuals as a share of disposable personal income. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/ Data/table7.htm. Accessed on May 13, 2006. ———. 2005b. Agricultural chemicals and production technology: sustainability and production systems. Avail- able at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/AgChemicals/sustainability.htm. Accessed on July 30, 2009. ———. 2008. Value of U.S. agricultural exports by commodity group, 2003–07. Available at http://www.ers.usda. gov/Data/StateExports/2008/commx5yr.xls. Accessed on August 4, 2009. ———. 2009a. Value of U.S. agricultural trade, by calendar year. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/ Fatus/DATA/XMScy1935.xls. Accessed on February 11, 2010.

OCR for page 43
 TOWARD SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ———. 2009b. A Preliminary analysis of the effects of HR 2454 on U.S. agriculture. Available at http://www.usda. gov/oce/newsroom/archives/releases/2009files/HR2454.pdf. Accessed on March 25, 2010. ———. 2009c. Agricultural resource management survey (ARMS): resource regions. Available at http://www.ers. usda.gov/Briefing/arms/resourceregions/resourceregions.htm. Accessed on August 4, 2009. ———. 2009d. Rural labor and education: farm labor. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Labor AndEducation/FarmLabor.htm. Accessed on June 30, 2009. ———. 2010. Agricultural productivity in the United States. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/ agproductivity/. Accessed on February 11, 2010. USDA-NASS (U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2009. 2007 Census of Ag- riculture. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. ———. 2002. Historical highlights: 2002 and earlier census years. Available at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/ Publications/2002/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_001_001.pdf. Accessed on April 13, 2010. ———. 2008. Quick stats. Available at http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/PullData_US.jsp. Accessed on October 6, 2008. USDA-NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resource Conservation Service). 1997. National Irrigation Guide. East Lansing, Mich.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. ———. 2001. 1997 National resources inventory summary report (revised December 2000). Available at http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/1997/summary_report/report.pdf. Accessed on September 2, 2009. ———. 2003. National resources inventory 2001 annual NRI—urbanization and development of rural land. Avail- able at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2001/urban.pdf. Accessed on September 13, 2008. ———. 2006. Energy management. Conservation Research Brief No. 0608. Available at http://www.nrcs.usda. gov/feature/outlook/Energy.pdf. Accessed on February 6, 2010. VeraSun Energy. 2009. VeraSun Energy Corporation launches chapter 11 case to enhance liquidity while it reorga- nizes. Available at http://www.verasun.com/Press/details.cfm?ID=161. Accessed on July 24, 2009. Vesterby, M., and K.S. Krupa. 2001. Major uses of land in the United States, 1997. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Vesterby, M., K.S. Krupa, and R.N. Lubowski. 2004. Estimating U.S. cropland area. Amber Waves 2(5):54. Villarejo, D., D. Lighthall, D. Williams, A. Souter, R. Mines, B. Bade, S. Samuels, and S.A. McCurdy. 2000. Suffer- ing in Silence: A Report on the Health of California’s Agricultural Workers. Davis, Calif.: California Institute for Rural Studies Vitousek, P.M., J.D. Aber, R.W. Howarth, G.E. Likens, P.A. Matson, D.W. Schindler, W.H. Schlesinger, and G.D. Tilman. 1997. Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecological Applica- tions 7(3):737–750. Wang, M., W. May, and H. Huo. 2007. Life-cycle energy and greenhouse gas emission impacts of different corn ethanol plant types. Environmental Research Letters 2:1–9. Wells, H.F., and J.C. Buzby. 2008. Dietary Assessment of Major Trends in U.S. Food Consumption, 1970–2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Westcott, P.C. 2007. Ethanol Expansion in the United States: How Will the Agricultural Sector Adjust? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Wescott, P.C. 2009. Full throttle: U.S. ethanol expansion faces challenges down the road. Amber Waves 7(3): 28–35. Wing, S., R.A. Horton, S.W. Marshall, K. Thu, M. Taiik, L. Schinasi, and S.S. Schiffman. 2008. Air pollution and odor in communities near industrial swine operations. Environmental Health Perspectives 116(10):1362–1368. Wing, S., and S. Wolf. 2000. Intensive livestock operations, health, and quality of life among Eastern North Carolina residents. Environmental Health Perspectives 108(3):233–238. Wirzba, N., ed. 2003. The Essential Agrarian Reader: The Future of Culture, Community, and the Land. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. Ziska, L.H. 2003. Evaluation of yield loss in field sorghum from a C-3 and C-4 weed with increasing CO2. Weed Science 51(6):914–918. Ziska, L.H., and K. George. 2004. Rising carbon dioxide and invasive, noxious plants: potential threats and con- sequences. World Resource Review 16:427–447. Ziska, L.H., and E.W. Goins. 2006. Elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide and weed populations in glyphosate treated soybean. Crop Science 46(3):1354–1359. Ziska, L.H., J.R. Teasdale, and J.A. Bunce. 1999. Future atmospheric carbon dioxide may increase tolerance to glyphosate. Weed Science 47(5):608–615.