Sustainable Development of the Agricultural Bio-Economy

Author(s): N. Jordan, G. Boody, W. Broussard, J. D. Glover, D. Keeney, B. H. McCown, G.

McIsaac, M. Muller, H. Murray, J. Neal, C. Pansing, R. E. Turner, K. Warner and D. Wyse
Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 316, No. 5831 (Jun. 15, 2007), pp. 1570-1571
Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20036476
Accessed: 12-02-2020 03:37 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20036476?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Science

This content downloaded from 45.238.196.189 on Wed, 12 Feb 2020 03:37:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ENVIRONMENT

Sustainable Development of the A U.S. farm policy shift to joint production of

commodities and ecological services will

Agricultural Bio-Economy
advance sustainable agriculture.

N. Jordan,1* G. Boody,2 W. Broussard,3 J. D. Glover/ D. Keeney,5 B. H. McCown,6 G. Mclsaac,7

M. Mullen5 H. Murray,8 J. Neal,9 C. Pausing,10 R. E. Turner,11 K. Warner,12 D. Wyse1

A "bio-economy" based on agricultural Multifunctional Production Systems

land is owned by absentee landowners (8),
biomass is emerging in the United Agricultural multifunctionality is defined as
which makes implementation of conservation
States that offers an avenue toward
practices more difficult. Now, excess corn
the joint production of standard commodities
energy independence and a more "green"and soybean stocks are being converted (e.g., to food or fiber) and "ecological serv
economy (7). Models for biomass produc biofuels, and demand for corn has skyrock ices." Examples of the latter include in
tion range from monocultures of annual andeted, resulting in a considerable expansion creased
of recreational opportunities in agricul
perennial crops to seminatural plant commucorn production and concomitant environ tural landscapes and protection of biodiver
nities (2, 3). Monocultures are simplermental
to impacts (9). sity and water quality (73). Biomass-produc
implement, but will likely perpetuate prob Despite troubling implications of these tion systems such as mixtures of multiple
lems that have arisen from current monocul
current trends, research and development species (3), tree cropping on farmland (14),
(R&D) and policy have focused on maximiz
tures of annual crops (mainly corn, soybean, and managed wetlands (75) use perennial
wheat, and cotton). Recently, market-based plant species as the basis of joint production.
ing biomass production and optimizing its use
agricultural policies have resulted in large
payments to farmers and landowners to
make up the difference between low com
modity prices and costs of production (4);
from 1997 to 2006, producers received 30%
of their net farm income in direct govern
ment payments (5). Environmental problems
are frequently associated with cultivation of
the annual crops that are eligible for subsidy
payments, including degradation of water
quality with sediment, nutrients, and pesti
cides; hydrologie modifications contribut
ing to flooding and groundwater depletion;
disruption of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife
habitats; emission of greenhouse gases; and
degradation of air quality with odors, pesti
cides, and particulates (6).
Farm size has increased, and few people
are able to enter farming, harming rural com
munities socially and economically (7). In the
Corn Belt states such as Iowa, over half the(7), with far less emphasis on evaluation of There is mounting evidence that these sys
environmental, social, and economic per tems can produce certain ecological services
formance (9). This imbalance may provoke more efficiently and effectively than agro
agronomy and Plant Genetics Department, University of
many interest groups to oppose growth of ecosystems based on annual crops. Ex
Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55018; 2Land Stewardship
such an agricultural bio-economy (70).
Project, White Bear Lake, MN 55110; department of amples include (i) soil and nitrogen loss rates
Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, Louisiana State Current federal programs and policy on from perennial crops are less than 5% of ?
environmental
University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803; 4The Land Institute, quality in agricultural land those in annual crops (16); (ii) perennial ?
Salina, KS 67401; institute for Agriculture and Trade cropping systems have greater capacity to |
scapes mainly subsidize retirement of land
Policy, Minneapolis, MN 55404; 6Center for Integrated
Agricultural Systems, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
from active production. This has produced sequester greenhouse gases than annual- |
Madison, Wl 53706; department of Natural Resources substantial environmental benefits (77), but based systems (77); (iii) in certain scenarios, jg
and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana,serious problems remain. Major additional some perennial crops appear more resilient ?j
IL 61801; 8Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture,
gains may result from a "working landscape" to climate change than annuals, e.g., increases g
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108; 9Leopold
approach that improves environmental per of 3? to 8?C are predicted to increase North g
Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University,
Ames, IA 50011; 10Mississippi River Basin Alliance,formance of active farmland by rewarding American yields of the perennial crop ?
Minneapolis, MN; nCoastal Ecology Institute, Louisiana farmers for delivering environmental bene switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) (18); and, |
State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803; ^Environmentalfits, as well as food and biomass (12). Our (iv) among species of concern for conserva- \
Studies Institute, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA
proposals aim to promote working landscapes tion, 48% increased in abundance when on- ?
94053, USA.
by capitalizing on the potential of "multifunc farm perennial land cover was increased in g
*Author for correspondence. E-mail: jorda020@umn.edu tional" agriculture. European Union incentive programs (19). 5

1570 15 JUNE 2007 VOL 316 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

This content downloaded from 45.238.196.189 on Wed, 12 Feb 2020 03:37:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 POLICYFORUM I
Multifunctional production systems can
to support biomass production. modest public investments (~$20 million
be highly valuable. The 34-million-acreState,Con federal, and private agencies annually).
should A variety of strong political con
servation Reserve Program (CRP) has pool been stituencies now expects a very different set
their resources to support this network.
estimated to produce $500 million/year These in of outputs
projects must be sufficiently scaled to from agriculture, and the U.S.
benefits from reduced erosion and $737 mil the complexity inherent infarm
address land sector could meet many of these
scape-scale multifunctionality and expectations
lion/year in wildlife viewing and hunting in the by harnessing the capacities of
benefits at a cost of ~$1.8 billion feedback
(77). If loops connecting natural, human,
multifunctional landscapes.
benefits such as carbon sequestration andaresocial resources. They should be estab References
added, CRP likely produces a net gain lishedinin medium-sized watersheds 1. (~5000
A. Eaglesham, Ed., Summary Proceedings: Third Annual

km2) and should be managed by groups World

many areas, if not for the entire nation. thatCongress on Industrial Biotechnology and
Bioprocessing, Toronto, 11 to 14 July 2006;
Diversified grassland agroecosystems encompass
on multiple stakeholders and levelsnabc.cals.cornell.edu/pubs/WCIBB2006_proc.pdf.
degraded agricultural land can increase of government.
both Such an effort is under2. L. way
Reijnders, Energy Policy 34, 863 (2006).
carbon storage and net energy gaininina bio 3. D. Tilman,
larger subbasin of the Chippewa River in ]. Hill, C. Lehman, Science 314,1598 (2006).
4. Economic Research Service (ERS), U.S. Department of
Minnesota
fuel production (3). This could provide 15% (75), focused on development of
Agriculture (USDA), A History of American Agriculture,
of electricity demand and eliminategrasslands
15% of for biofuel and meat and dairy 1607-2000 (ERS Post 12, Washington, DC, September
C02 emissions if implemented globally. food production. 2000); www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/index.htm.
5. ERS, Farm Income: Data Files (ERS, Washington, DC,
Restored wetlands on flood-prone farm Financial and policy support should be
2007); www.ers.usda.gov/data/Farmlncome/finfidmu.
given to the multi-stakeholder processes
land can provide biomass, increase wildlife htm.
abundance, and improve water quality of learning,
by deliberation, negotiation,6. R. N.and
Lubowski et ai, Environmental Effects of
processes such as denitrificationexperimentation
(75). Agricultural Land-Use Change: The Role of Economics
that are needed to establish
Denitrification in managed wetlands and evaluate
is research and demonstration and Policy (Economic Research Report no. 25, ERS,
Washington, DC, 2006); www.ers.usda.gov/
estimated to reduce costs of biological
projects. Such processes might help,Publications/err25/).
for
example,
nutrient removal in municipal water treat to simplify complex funding land
7. C. W. Stofferhan, Industrialized Farming and Its

ment by about 15%. scapes of subsidy policy like the one Relationship
that to Community Well-Being: An Update of a
2000 Report by Linda Lobao (prepared for the Attorney
An assessment of the potential eco to be hindering biofuel development
appears General, State of North Dakota, 2006);
in the United Kingdom (20). Stirrings
nomic, social, and environmental perform of
www.und.nodak.edu/misc/ndrural/Lobao%20&%20
Stofferahn.pdf.
ance of multifunctional systems is provided
the necessary approach are evident in recent
8. M. Duffy, AgDM Newsl. (October 2004), www.extension.
strategic
by a simulation study performed for two rep alliances among regional andiastate.edu/agdm/articles/duffy/DuffyOct04.htm.
nat
resentative agricultural watersheds ional groups concerned with the environ
in the 9. D. Kennedy, Science 316, 515 (2007).
ment,of
upper Midwest United States [subbasins renewable energy development, and
10. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP),
"Assessing the bioeconomy" [survey] (IATP, Minneapolis,
Wells Creek (16,264 ha) and the Chippewa
agriculture [e.g., see (21,22)].
MN, 2006); www.agobservatory.org/
River (17,994 ha) in Minnesota] (13). Research must be focused on the trade
issue_bioeconomy.cfm.
Results indicated that benefits could be arise, e.g., between wildlife 11.habitat
offs that P. Sullivan et ai, The Conservation Reserve Program:
Economic Implications for Rural America (Agricultural
attained by increased cultivation ofand biomass production. Models indicated
peren
Economic Report no. 834, ERS, Washington, DC, 2004);
nial crops without increasing public that the form of the trade-off determined
costs. www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AER834.
Environmental benefits included improved
whether wildlife-friendly farming was 12. D.more
R. Keeney, L. Kemp, in The Role of Biodiversity

water quality, increased fish abundance,

cost-effective than an alternative policy, Conservation in the Transition to Rural Sustainability:
Proceedings of North Atlantic Treaty Organization
increased carbon sequestration, the and retirement
de of "marginal" farmland to
Advanced Research Workshop on Biodiversity
creased greenhouse gas emissions. Ecoincrease wildlife habitat (23). More broadly,Conservation and Rural Sustainability, S. Light, Ed.,
nomic benefits included social capital for
modeling has indicated that many trade-off Krakow, Poland, November 2002 (IOS Press, Amsterdam,
2004), pp. 29-47.
mation, greater farm profitability, and might be overcome if a sufficient
problems
13. G. Boody et al., BioScience 55, 27 (2005).
avoided costs associated with specific enviof ecological services (e.g., water-qual
range 14. U. Jorgensen, T. Dalgaard, E. S. Kristensen, Biomass
ronmental damages. The most extensiveity protection, as well as wildlife conserva Bioenergy 28, 237(2005).
15. D. L. Hey, L. S. Urban, ]. A. Kostel, Ecol. Eng. 24, 279
land-use change scenario (7 to 14% tion)
conver
was provided (75). Empirical research is
(2005).
sion to perennials) was projected to urgently
produce needed in the context of specific
16. C. J. Gantzer, S. H. Anderson, A. L. Thompson, ). R. Brown,
the greatest reductions in sediment and
enterprises, such as biofuel production. J. Soil Water Conserv. 45, 641 (1990).
nutrient loading to waterways; sediment 17. G. P. Robertson, E. A. Paul, R. R. Harwood, Science 289,
1922 (2000).
loading was reduced by as much as Conclusions
80%.
18. R. Brown, N. Rosenberg, C. Hays, W. Easterling,
Total government payments were projected
Two key policy instruments to achieveL. the Mearns, Agrie. Ecosyst. Environ. 78, 31 (2000).
to decline by 13%. These projections goals
offerwe
a have described are the omnibus
19. D. Kleijn et al., Ecol. Lett. 9, 243 (2006).

widely applicable model for agroecosys 20. P. Thornley, Energy Policy 34, 2087 (2006).
farm bill and the existing agricultural R&D
21. Green Lands Blue Water Initiative,
tems in the Midwest United States. infrastructure. Agricultural subsidieswww.greenlandsbluewaters.org.
in
2005 exceeded $24 billion, and the 2007 www.rivermap.org.
22. RiverMap,
Testing the Model 23. R. E.how
farm bill deliberations should highlight Green, S. ]. Cornell, ]. P. W. Scharlemann,
A. Balmford, Science 307, 550 (2005).
Multifunctional systems have been testedthese federal dollars could better achieve
24. We thank participants in the Green Lands Blue Water
national priorities. In particular, the new
only at relatively small scales. We propose Initiative, as well as C. Dybas, W. Jackson, S. Morse, and
creation of a network of research andfarmdemonbill should provide the agriculturalS. Pimm. Funding was obtained primarily through the
R&D eco
stration projects to establish and evaluate infrastructure with incentives to Coastal
evalOcean Program, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and a grant from the
uate multifunctional production as a basis
nomic enterprises based on multifunctional Kellogg Foundation.
for also
production systems. This program will a sustainable agricultural bio-economy.
10.1126/science.ll41700
Wepolicy
help test and refine federal farm-bill judge that this can be done with very

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 316 15 JUNE 2007 1571

This content downloaded from 45.238.196.189 on Wed, 12 Feb 2020 03:37:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms