The acceptance and utility of alternative agricultural research can be enhanced by better incorporating social sciences and issues and by broadening its scope to the entire food system rather than focusing only on food production. Researchers have made strong contributions in developing and evaluating alternative agricultural technologies, but research attention also is needed to articulate strategies for synthesizing those technologies into coherent strategies, to examine the social effects of different scenarios, and to create better decisionmaking processes for ensuring broad-based knowledgeable participation in the choices among alternative strategies. Research that addresses human needs beyond food and fiber will help build truly alternative and desirable agricultural systems.

The policies influencing the American agricultural research agenda are developed by Congress, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the 58 state agricultural experiment stations of the land-grant university system, with input from various advisory groups. Despite the slow pace of change in the agricultural research agenda, there are no special barriers keeping the research system from adapting to contemporary and alternative agriculture issues. Rather, agricultural researchers have neither appropriate professional incentives nor sufficient financial incentives to shift toward alternative agriculture. Public intervention to alter these incentives has been thwarted because agricultural research institutions set their agendas through obscure processes. Five areas of policy change that could improve the prospects for evolution of a significant alternative agriculture research agenda are: 1) imposing a means test for formula fund payment limitations to states, with saved funds directed toward alternative agriculture research; 2) making priority setting a condition for receiving federalfunds for agricultural research to make the research agenda-setting process clearer to all interested parties; 3) requiring that federally funded research programs be categorized by the specific social goals toward which they are directed, to aid in judgments about the relevance of specific public agricultural research programs; 4) requiring information on research programs to be reported in a way that is specifically relevant to the alternative agriculture agenda; 5) formally involving public citizens and farmers in reviewing agricultural research grants to assure that the usefulness of proposed research is weighed along with scientific merit. These proposals complement current interest in making science generally more responsive to national priorities, and are entirely feasible within current agricultural research policy processes. Their effectiveness, however, is limited by the shrinking influence of federal funding in the state agricultural experiment station system, and they are only incremental changes within the existing system rather than radical reforms toward an alternative research system.

Applied agricultural research that is concerned with highly specific production methods and growing conditions differs in its purposes and social value from more “academic” kinds of research intended to advance knowledge in a more general and less immediately practical way. Nevertheless, it is conducted in an institutional setting established largely for the latter kind of research. Many people have suggested that the resulting conflicts could be reduced by introducing greater flexibility into the professional reward system for agricultural researchers. However, the mismatch may go too deep to be fixed this way. An alternative would be to remove highly applied researchfrom the academic domain and treat it instead as a service to the university's outside constituencies. A service orientation is especially appropriate for publicly supported universities, which is where most such research is done.

We compared the agronomic, economic, and ecological performance of alternative (organic), conventional, and reduced-till farming systems over a 7-year period. We evaluated the sustainability of the various systems regarding several concerns, including soil erosion, pollution potential, whole-farm productivity, energy use, environmental stress, economic performance, and farm size. The alternative systems relied primarily on forage legumes (alfalfa or clover) as substitutes for the pesticides and commercial fertilizers used in the other systems.

Two studies were established in northeastern South Dakota in 1985. Study I emphasized row crops, Study II small grains. The alternative system in Study I, which included alfalfa hay in the rotation, was the most productive, both agronomically and economically. In Study II, the alternative system included a green manure crop (clover) in the 4-year rotation and had the lowest agronomic production; however, its economic performance was similar to the conventional system's. Year-to-year variability in production was lowest in the alternative systems. The alternative systems in both studies were the most energy-efficient, and the reduced-till systems the least. Judged by the distribution of nitrate-N in the soil profile, the potential for groundwater pollution was higher in the conventional and reduced-till systems in Study I than in the alternative system.

The alternative systems in both studies depended less on government payments for their profitability. Results in Study I also showed that more widespread adoption of alternative systems would tend to halt or slow the trend of ever-increasing farm size. These studies suggest that alternative systems are more sustainable in this agro-climatic area.

Biodynamic and organic farming are similar in that both are ecologically oriented and do not use chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The main difference is that biodynamic farmers add eight specific amendments, called preparations, to their soils, crops, and composts. Recently, there has been an increasing interest in biodynamic farming practices and systems because they show potential for mitigating some detrimental effects of chemical-dependent conventional agriculture. Only a few studies examining biodynamic methods or comparing biodynamic farming with other farming systems have been published in the refereed scientific literature, especially in English. This paper summarizes data from previous studies, both published and unpublished (theses), that have compared biodynamic and conventional farming systems with respect to soil quality or profitability. These studies have shown that the biodynamic farming systems generally have better soil quality, lower crop yields, and equal or higher net returns per hectare than their conventional counterparts. Two studies that included organic management treatments with and without the preparations showed that the preparations improved biological soil properties and increased crop root growth. However, more research is needed to determine whether the preparations affect soil physical, chemical, and biological properties and crop growth and, if so, their mode of action.