Harvest of hope: The potential for alternative agriculture to reduce
pesticide use.
Curtis, Jennifer, Tom Kuhnle and Lawrie Mott

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 1991

The lack of national leadership to protect water resources from agricultural nonpoint source pollution, combined with the additional threats pesticides pose to the environment and public health, provides a strong argument for reducing the use of agricultural chemicals. Source reduction, as in other industries, is a logical, practical strategy for preventing the environmental problems associated with agriculture.

Widespread adoption of alternative agricultural practices holds the greatest potential for source reduction. These farming practices are designed to reduce chemical inputs, preserve and enhance natural resources, and protect human health. Alternative agriculture encompasses practices often referred to as biological, low (or reduced) input, organic, regenerative, and sustainable.

Potential Reductions in Pesticide Applications for
Selected California and Iowa Crops

Despite the growing interest in alternative agriculture, broad implementation of these techniques has not occurred. This report seeks to illustrate the dramatic potential for alternative farming systems to reduce pesticide use. By obtaining information on alternative pest control strategies from published scientific literature, results of ongoing research, and experiences of individual farmers, this study projects potential reductions in pesticide applications for nine crops in California and Iowa. These crops were chosen to provide a cross section of the diversity of American agriculture.

The viability of alternative farming practices varies depending on weather and soil conditions and the management capabilities of individual farmers. In California alfalfa, border harvesting and strip cutting could potentially reduce insecticide applications by 30 percent. Intercropping of cotton in alfalfa could potentially decrease herbicide applications by 40 percent. Insecticide applications could potentially be reduced 50 percent in San Joaquin Valley citrus with greater adoption of integrated pest management (IPM). "Middles" management in citrus could potentially decrease herbicide applications by 40 percent. In California cotton, insecticide applications could potentially be reduced 25 percent with interplanting and IPM. Leaf removal could potentially reduce fungicide applications by 30 percent in California wine grapes. Insecticide and herbicide applications in California grapes could potentially be decreased by 35 and 50 percent, respectively, with a variety of alternative techniques. In California lettuce, greater use of 1PM and crop rotations could potentially reduce insecticide, fungicide and herbicide applications by 25, 20, and 50 percent, respectively. Adoption of a no-till/drill-seeding system, cover crops, and crop rotations could potentially decrease herbicide and insecticide applications by 50 and 25 percent respectively in California rice. In processing tomatoes, sub-surface drip irrigation, crop rotations and IPM could potentially reduce herbicide and insecticide applications by 50 and 25 percent. Banding herbicides, ridge-till, crop rotations, and a corn root-worm bait could potentially decrease herbicide and insecticide applications by 50 and 80 percent, respectively, in Iowa corn. In Iowa soybeans, banding herbicides, ridge-till, narrow row production, and strip intercropping could potentially decrease herbicide applications by 50 percent.

Barriers to Alternative Agriculture

Several barriers stand in the way of widespread adoption of promising alternative farming practices. In some areas, a scarcity of skilled labor makes it difficult to follow aspects of 1PM that require scouting and other labor-intensive activities. Weather-induced risks, such as heavy spring rains in the Corn Belt, can deter mechanical cultivation. Regional soil conditions can also make it difficult to adopt alternative strategies. For example, the heavy clay soils in certain rice-growing regions of California deter crop rotations.

Federal and state policies also hinder the adoption of alternative farming systems. First, the federal government is the hub of the huge agricultural research and extension complex that spends more than $1.5 billion each year. Yet alternative agricultural research is underfunded and dissemination of information about these techniques is inadequate. Second, many farmers receive a large portion of their income from farm subsidies disbursed by the federal government. However, the rules by which these payments are distributed prevent reductions in pesticide use by penalizing crop rotations and promoting surplus production and increased yields. Third, federal and state marketing orders and grade standards can result in unnecessary pesticide applications by specifying cosmetic criteria for produce that are difficult to attain cost- effectively without the use of chemicals. Fourth, current pesticide regulations hinder the rapid registration of biologically-based materials that could substitute for chemical pesticides. Fifth, the federal Bureau of Reclamation supplies growers in California and other western states with irrigation water at rates substantially below the true cost. Growers, therefore, are discouraged to invest in water conservation techniques that could facilitate reductions in pesticide use. Finally, the costs farmers now pay for pesticides fail to account for the impact of these chemicals on human health and the environment (so-called externalities). This makes pesticides incorrectly cheaper than alternative farming systems.

Recommendations for Reform

Policy reforms in six key areas are essential for eliminating many of the barriers to widespread adoption of alternative farming systems: agricultural research, federal farm programs, marketing policies, pesticide registration requirements, water pricing, and hidden costs of agricultural chemicals. To date, the development and implementation of agricultural techniques that reduce chemical use have been stymied by the lack of funds directed to alternative agricultural research. Funds for alternative farming research, particularly on-farm, systems- oriented research, should be substantially increased.

The federal farm programs reward farmers for producing a handful of commodity crops that tend to use large amounts of chemical inputs. The commodity programs should be amended so farmers can adopt more environmentally-sound farming systems without incurring financial penalties.

Federal and state marketing policies often make it difficult for farmers to adopt alternative farming practices that use fewer pesticides. Federal and state marketing orders should not be allowed to use cosmetic quality standards to differentiate produce. In addition, exemptions from marketing orders should be granted to all certified organic produce.

The development of biologically-based materials, such as botanicals, microbials, and pheromones has been obstructed by federal and state pesticide registration requirements. Congress should direct the National Academy of Sciences to review existing regulations for biologically-based materials and make recommendations for improving government procedures to hasten the registration of biologically-based pest control techniques.

The use of efficient irrigation systems has the potential to significantly reduce the use of agricultural chemicals and their transport to water supplies. However, because of the low price of irrigation supplies available to many growers, more efficient technologies and management practices have not been widely adopted. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation should revise its water prices to encourage greater efficiency. Similarly, irrigation districts should adopt tiered water rate schedules that discourage inefficient irrigation practices and encourage the adoption of alternative farming systems.

Conventional agricultural practices rely extensively on the use of pesticides and fertilizers. However, current market prices for pesticides and fertilizers do not reflect the true environmental and social costs of their use. Federal and state governments should levy fees on the use of pesticides and fertilizers to reflect the environmental and health costs, and to provide revenues for alternative agricultural research and development programs, as is the current case in Iowa.

For more information write to: Natural Resources Defense Council, 90 New Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

(DEC.334)
Contributed by Jennifer Curtis
Natural Resources Defense Council