Summer 1993 (v5n4)
	From the Director Why We Study Organic Agriculture Many times we are asked why we at the UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program focus our efforts in particular areas, especially organic agriculture. My answer almost always is that we do what we do because the legislation that created SAREP is very precise. The legislation clearly states that we should "promote more research and education on sustainable agricultural practices such as organic methods, biological control and integrated pest managements, and including the analysis of economic factors influencing the long term sustainability of California agriculture." It requires that we "consider interactions among soil, plant, water, air, animals, tillage, machinery, labor, energy and transportation to enhance agricultural efficiency, public health, and resource conservation." If we go back 100 to 150 years, all agriculture was organic. Even 50 years ago, most farming would have been considered organic. It is only since World War II that what is presently called "conventional" agriculture began to emerge. In fact, we may already be in the post-conventional phase. Agriculture, as practiced now is represented by a broad spectrum of practices, from organic to conventional. Should conventional agriculture be researched? Should organic agriculture be researched? Yes, they both should, because they both represent very different ideas about how a major human activity should be conducted. Any idea or other practice may have merit and provide useful options, and therefore, may be worthy of study. Universities are places where many philosophies, ideas, and practices should be allowed to flourish. We need a wide pool of options to solve contemporary problems. I know that the examination of alternative agricultural practices is not popular with some people, but if that was always the case, we would still be a hunting-gathering society. Thomas Kuhn, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, notes that often when a new model or paradigm becomes dominant, as did conventional agriculture, most scientists focus on work that refines that model. They ask questions that are appropriate to that model and will avoid questions that do not fit. In a sense, a cerebral monoculture is developed. We are all socialized to believe the values attributed to the dominant model. Anything that is different will have an uphill struggle. The prejudice or bias against organic agriculture is understandable because it is different from the current standard, conventional agriculture, and we are comfortable with what we know. However, if we step back and look at alternative agricultural paradigms as sources of complementary or new solutions to present-day problems, then we will have done ourselves a favor by broadening our options. An example of this is the case of a California conventional farmer and his family who are making the transition to reduced pesticide use on their 4,000 acres. The farmer told me that they have learned to be better farmers in their conventional operation by trying to farm a portion of their land organically. This is because they had to become better observers and managers to farm the organic portion. They have been able to reduce pesticide use on the entire operation by about 65 percent over a five-year period. By opening themselves up to other possibilities, they benefitted. The very process of trying to change is a wonderful learning experience. That lesson is a good one in today's society.-Bill Liebhardt, director; UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. [ Back | Search | Feedback ]