Word of the Day: Sustainability

ASHS National Issues Consultant Jonathan Moore discusses "sustainability" as part of the Washington lexicon.

Webster’s Dictionary defines “sustain” as “keeping in existence; maintaining.” Another annotation hits even closer to home for agriculture; “to supply [something] with necessities or nourishment.” Originating from the 13th Century Latin word “sustinere”—to uphold—sustainability the noun has become the all-purpose operative word for agriculture practices with environmental stewardship in mind. As Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring ushered conservation and ecology into public discourse in the 1960s, so sustainability now ushers in new methods for approaching farming as a long-range management and conservancy process. Thus in place, opportunities are enhance for positive dividends toward food production, farm operation profitability, and revitalized communities.

Sustainable is the word du jour in other professions as well. In architecture, it is an umbrella term for “green design” initiatives using recycled building materials, energy-saving utilities, minimized development space, and environmentally-consciousness structures with low carbon emissions. Between agriculture and architecture, one might view sustainability as a 21st Century term denoting maximum product output through environmental and energy savings. In the food science arena, sustainability’s origins can be traced back to the 1990 Farm Bill. Coming on the heels of expanding organics movements (though sustainability adherents point out that organic practices are at times both congruent and divergent with sustainable practice), the 1990 Farm Bill defined sustainability as “an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having site-specific applications for:

1. satisfying human food and fiber needs;
2. enhancing environmental quality and the natural resource base;
3. efficient utilization of nonrenewable resources;
4. sustaining economic viability of farm operations; and
5. enhancing quality of life for farmers and society.”

A tall order perhaps, but goals that are fast becoming the norm as today’s crop production and distribution operations face growing consumer demands at home and abroad. It focuses agricultural science and practice on a “new frontier” integrated approach to economics, production, and distribution—all under the banner of applied conservation for maintaining viable and profitable farm operations. Sustainability’s popularity encompasses virtually the entire agriculture spectrum—from organics to biotechnology, and from individual specialty crop producers to corporate titans such as Monsanto, whose ads and website proudly proclaim dedication to “helping farmers grow yield sustainably.” Yet a term covering such a range of practices still relies on that basic ingredient for all of agriculture—research—and resultant applications derived from laboratories, experiment stations, and other field offices.

Sustainability’s presence in Washington is spearheaded by several groups. Among the most prominent is the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), an alliance of farm, rural development, and conservation groups formed to “advance common positions supporting small and mid-size family farms, protect natural resources, promote healthy rural communities, and provide nutritious and healthy food to consumers.” NSAC’s vision is for American agriculture to continue producing safe, nutritious, abundant, and affordable food supplies, in concert with environmental protection and practices maintaining economically viable communities. This holistic approach centers on a broad range of “on-farm best practices,” plus mitigation methods enhancing soil and water quality, maintaining and replenishing soil nutrients, combating field erosion, and judicious fertilizer/pesticide use based on individual crop production requirements. Thus, NSAC and its allies advance new comprehensive farm management operations sustaining a farm’s productivity and long-term environmental quality. Supporters of sustainability’s concepts, including ASHS’ National Issues Task Force (NITF), believe that there is no time like the present for expanding these concepts—making them part of mainstream dialogue for both rural and urban food and plant producers. Urban specialty crop farms are especially ripe for sustainability’s tenets—their location offering unique opportunities for enhancing food productivity “footprints” by lowering distribution costs, enhancing affordability, and creating additional green space within our urban centers. Sustainability is ultimately a tried and true affirmation of wise and efficient ecological management, dating back to clarion calls sounded by other enviro-conscious advocates over the decades.

Efficient land use, resource conversation, new technologies fostering local production and purchase of agriculture products (read: specialty crops!), fostering economic viability—all form components of a growing movement leading to positive outcomes for the environment and society.

These practices are being implemented by researchers, extension agents, producers, and processors nationwide. An optimal time for continued scientific advancement with agriculture—not to mention positive attitudinal changes—ASHS–NITF views research options afforded by sustainable practice as additional lucrative project ventures for the future. The NITF’s immediate focus centers on the Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education (SARE) program, administered by USDA’s newly formed National Institute for Food & Agriculture [NIFA, formerly the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)]. ASHS has consistently supported this program over the past decade, viewing its on-farm applications as beneficial PR tools taking research beyond the lab into extension offices and on-farm operations. Administered somewhat differently from SCRI, AFRI, and OREI, SARE grants are approved via four regional outlets nationwide. SARE’s growing popularity and innovative approaches are reflecting in FY10 federal funding: $14.6 million for research and education and $6 million for professional development (the latter primarily extension and field-site training). I met recently with Rob Hedberg, NIFA’s Interim Program Leader for Sustainable Agriculture, to discuss how ASHS could acquire additional knowledge with this program’s regional grant criteria. Hedberg said volunteering for service on one of these regional panels is helpful for learning more about criteria involved with grant awards. “Each region is unique,” Hedberg says. “Because SARE covers so many sectors of agriculture practice, from resource conservation to best practices with agronomy and horticulture, these panels are always on the lookout for volunteers providing a broad range of perspectives.” I subsequently followed up with SARE’s four regional offices.

ASHS Past President Paul Read, NITF member and Professor of Horticulture/Viticulture at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, recently conducted a SARE program bringing extension agents up to speed with Nebraska’s burgeoning grape and viticulture industry. “SARE provides reasoned innovative approaches to environmental protection without losing sight of agriculture’s ultimate goal, which is feeding the world,” he says. “Sustainability’s concepts have been around for a while, but SARE helps sharpen the focus by promoting long-term investment strategies for profitable farm management.”

Undoubtedly, basic and applied research will be key to sustainability’s continued success and acceptance by the entire agriculture community. Whether rural or urban farms, ornamental gardens, or land on “indefinite fallow” status, this forward-looking approach seeks to maintain the productivity, health, and general aesthetics of our environment. With projected population increases in the next 50 years, this movement will undoubtedly provide—and help achieve—beneficial long-range objectives.

Other News

Prior to release of FY11 budget numbers, and with FY10 formula and competitive research funding now law, I am pursuing two new areas for potential ASHS involvement. Both offer profile-raising possibilities with potential long-term dividends for securing federal competitive grants. One covers service on USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service’s (NASS) Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics (ACAS). With advent of 2010’s Horticulture Census (including floriculture), having ASHS members on this advisory panel would be advantageous and timely. ACAS members are officially selected by the USDA Secretary. They serve a two-year term with another two-year option. ACAS members advise USDA on the conduct of periodic censuses and related surveys. They also make recommendations concerning content of agriculture reports and help define types and places of data collection for use in census tabulations. Originally chartered under the Dept. of Commerce in the early 1960s, ACAS came under USDA jurisdiction when agriculture census authority was transferred to NASS in 1996. ACAS expects to receive an updated charter signed by USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack in the weeks ahead. Hopefully no later than January - February 2010. Once the new charter is signed, a 60-day solicitation notice and comment period follows in the Federal Register. Secretary Vilsack then receives nominees from NASS and makes final selections. Although a lengthy process, I am pleased to report that several ASHS members have submitted their names for consideration on this panel. Any ASHS members having an interest with ACAS are free to send me their names as well.

The second area for potential ASHS service involves Specialty Crop Block Grant (SCBG) state review panels. Thanks to a question raised by ASHS member George Hochmuth of the Univ. of Florida, I asked USDA’s Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS)—administrators of these block grants—about ASHS member eligibility for serving on these review panels. According to SCBG statutes:

The State Department of Agriculture should aim to assemble a professionally diverse panel active in industry (producers, growers, handlers, manufacturers, etc.), academia, and public/nonprofit sectors. Ideally, panelists chosen by the State Department of Agriculture should be dedicated to high quality, fair reviews, and be able to devote sufficient time to the review process. To ensure the integrity of a peer review panel, it is important that panelists are not allowed to submit an application to the panel on which they’ve agreed to serve.

—U.S. Department of Agriculture, AMS—Specialty Crop Block Grant Program Manual (pg. 4)

The last sentence imparts sacrificial altruism, but those serving gain valued knowledge and contacts for crafting future SCBG applications. Plus, you help further ASHS-NITF’s ongoing objective to close the marketing/research dollar award gap. What could be more altruistic than that? According to an AMS official, SCBG figures released for FY09 show steady increases for research; 14% of total funding awards, up 5% from the previous year. Competing with state marketing forces, a good trend indeed but still shy of NITF’s goal of leveling the field with market promotion forces. It also proves that ASHS’ strategic contacts with state departments of agriculture are paying dividends.

“Having a good cross-section of ASHS members serving on these panels and committees not only raises our profile, it keeps us abreast of the latest trends with competitive grant programs,” says NITF Chair Thomas Björkman. Whether NASS, AMS, NIFA, or other public/private peer review entities, establishing communication links and acquiring procedural knowledge is vital for us to remain competitive with other like-minded groups seeking similar grants.”

As we near the end of the 111th Congress’ first session, debates remain focused on health care, budget items, and other overseas commitments. But food safety, climate change, and bioenergy deliberations are slowly reemerging. With approaching holidays, further consideration of these issues may not begin in earnest until December or early 2010. In the next policy update, I hope to have new information on these issues, plus results from contacts with the US Environmental Protection Agency, National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. I also plan to relay notes on a recent appointment with the National Turfgrass Federation (located at ARS headquarters in Beltsville, MD), and discussion with their Executive Director about a program offering research opportunities—the National Turfgrass Research Initiative.

Surprise Announcement

I conclude with another surprising announcement made on 10 November. Just when things had settled down with the new team at USDA, Undersecretary for Research Dr. Rajiv Shah announced his acceptance to head the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). He has been in his current position since this past July. No word yet on a replacement. As this position now includes the exalted title of USDA “Chief Scientist”, your NITF team is eager to learn who will be Shah’s successor. No doubt this person, and the rest of USDA’s new research team (now including ASHS’ own Molly Jahn as Deputy Undersecretary for Research) will continue broadening research initiatives through NIFA, ARS, and the Economic Research Service. Through your National Issues Task Force, my objective is keeping federal officials mindful of ASHS contributions on a variety of scientific fronts, while seeking new competitive grant opportunities in fields beyond just food, fiber, and ornamental plant sectors. Just as Rachel Carson’s book sparked an environmental revolution, USDA continues promoting a new “research revolution” for sustaining and enhancing our environment for the challenging years ahead.

- published in the November 2009 ASHS Newsletter