Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T22:26:18.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrated crop/livestock systems research: Practical research considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2008

D.L. Tanaka ,
J.F. Karn  and
E.J. Scholljegerdes
D.L. Tanaka*
Affiliation:
US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service (USDA-ARS), Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, PO Box 459, Mandan, ND 58554, USA.
J.F. Karn
Affiliation:
US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service (USDA-ARS), Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, PO Box 459, Mandan, ND 58554, USA.
E.J. Scholljegerdes
Affiliation:
US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service (USDA-ARS), Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, PO Box 459, Mandan, ND 58554, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: tanakad@mandan.ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are many reasons for the paucity of integrated crop/livestock research and associated publications. Integrated/crop livestock experiments that involve adequate treatments and replications, as perceived by both crop and animal scientists, require large numbers of hectares, many animals, considerable labor to conduct the research, substantial financial resources, and a commitment by Federal and State Research Agencies to fund such long-term research projects. To be truly integrated, crop/livestock research must be multidisciplinary, involving scientists of diverse training and experience with expertise to address various aspects of the research problem, and scientists must function as a cohesive unit or team. The prevailing attitude that all experimental data must be statistically analyzed to be of any value is also a detriment to integrated research. Statistical analyses of these projects may be quite challenging and require new or unusual approaches. Related to the prevailing need for statistical analysis is also the need for scientists to publish senior authored publications for career advancement. Conducting integrated research may not facilitate scientists' publishing the number and quality of publications required for them to meet these criteria. A further obstacle to integrated research alluded to above, involves the many experimental design compromises that must be made by cooperating scientists. Crop and soil scientists for example, use many treatments and replications with small plots, while animal scientists, by necessity, have experiments that involve relatively large numbers of hectares and animal numbers with relatively few treatments and replications. It is therefore extremely difficult to initiate such projects given these inherent differences in crop versus livestock research protocol, as well as to design effective experiments that will provide publishable data. Making compromises on the many factors relevant to integrated crop/livestock research while designing experiments that will provide solutions to pertinent producer problems as well as useful data that can be statistically analyzed and published is, therefore, extremely difficult.

Keywords

integrated crop/livestock systems
Type
Review Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 23 , Special Issue 1: Researching Sustainable Agricultural Systems, ISOFAR 2005 , March 2008 , pp. 80 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Keeney, D.R. 1989. Toward a sustainable agriculture: Need for clarification of concepts and terminology. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 4:101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Abeles, T. 1996. Sustainable agriculture in the United States. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 8:3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Nene, Y.L. 1996. Sustainable agriculture: future hope for developing countries. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 18:133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Brummer, E.C. 1998. Diversity, stability, and sustainable American agriculture. Agronomy Journal 90:1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Madden, J.P. 1989. What is alternative agriculture? American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 4:32–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 MacRae, R.J., Hills, S.B., Henning, J., and Mehuys, G.R. 1989. Agriculture Science and sustainable agriculture: A review of existing scientific barriers to sustainable food production and potential solutions. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 6:173–219.Google Scholar
7 Brown, G.E. Jr. 1989. Contemporary issues. The critical challenges facing the structure and function of agricultural research. Journal of Production Agriculture 2:98–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Hildebrand, P.E. 1990. Agronomy's role in sustainable agriculture: Integrated farming systems. Journal of Production Agriculture 3:285–288.Google Scholar
9 Hesterman, O.B. and Thorburn, T.L. 1994. A comprehensive approach to sustainable agriculture: W. K. Kellogg's integrated farming systems initiative. Journal of Production Agriculture 7:132–134.Google Scholar
10 Karn, J.F., Tanaka, D.L., Liebig, M.A., Ries, R.E., Kronberg, S.L., and Hanson, J.D. 2005. An integrated approach to crop/livestock systems: Wintering beef cows on swathed crops. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20:232–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Tanaka, D.L., Karn, J.F., Liebig, M.A., Kronberg, S.L., and Hanson, J.D. 2005. An integrated approach to crop/livestock systems: Forage and grain production for swath grazing. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20:223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Jordan, V.W.L., Hutcheon, J.A., Donaldson, G.V., and Farmer, D.P. 1997. Research into and development of integrated farming systems for less-intensive arable crop production: experimental progress (1989–1994) and commercial implementation. Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment 64:141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Ogilvy, S.E., Turley, D.B., Cook, S.K., Fisher, N.M., Holland, J., Prew, R.D., and Spink, J. 1994. Integrated farming–putting together systems for farm use. Aspects of Applied Biology 40:53–60.Google Scholar
14 Anderson, M.D. and Lockeretz, W. 1992. Sustainable agriculture research in the ideal and in the field. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 47(1):100–104.Google Scholar
15 Luna, J., Allen, V., Fontenot, J., Daniels, L., Vaughan, D., Hagood, S., Taylor, D., and Laub, C. 1994. Whole farm systems research: An integrated crop and livestock systems comparison study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 9:57–63.Google Scholar
16 Thomson, E.F. and Bahhady, F.A. 1995. A model-farm approach to research on crop-livestock integration – I. Conceptual framework and methods. Agricultural Systems 49:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1989. Alternative Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
18 Kirschenmann, F. 1988. Resolving conflicts in American land-use values: How organic farming can help. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 3:43–47.Google Scholar
19 Buttel, F.H., Gillespie, G.W. Jr, Janke, R., Caldwell, B., and Sorrantonio, M. 1986. Reduced-input agricultural systems: A critique. The Rural Sociologist 6(5):350–370.Google Scholar
20 Hess, C.E. 1992. Funding strategies for agricultural research challenges. HortScience 27:201–203.Google Scholar
21 Douglas, G.K. 1984. The meanings of Agricultural Sustainability. In Douglas, G.K. (ed.). Agricultural Sustainability in a Changing World Order. Westview Press Boulder, Colorado. p. 3–29.Google Scholar
22 Pretty, J.N. 1998. Integrated biosystems in zero emissions applications. In Foo, E.L. and Senta, T.D. (eds). In proceedings of the Internet conference on Integrated Bio-systems. Available at web site http://www.las.unu.edu/proceeding/icibs/jules/papers.html (verified July 2006).Google Scholar
23 Busch, L. 1984. Science, technology, agriculture and everyday life. In Schwarzweller, H.K. (ed.). Research in Rural Sociology and Development: Focus on Agriculture. volume I, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. p. 289–314.Google Scholar
24 Molnar, J.J., Duffy, P.A., Cummins, KA., and Van Santen, E. 1992. Agricultural science and agricultural counterculture paradigms in search of a future. Rural Sociology 57:83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25 Prow, T.M. 1994. Sustainable ag projects bring researchers to the farm. Illinois Research spring/summer 36(1/2):18–22.Google Scholar
26 Miller, A. 1982. Tunnel vision in environmental management. The Environmentalist 2:223–231.Google Scholar
27 Axinn, G.H. 1978. New strategies for rural development. Rural Life Associates, East Lansing, MI. p. 194.Google Scholar
28 Grierson, W. 1980. The enforced conservatism of young horticultural scientists. HortScience 15:228–229.Google Scholar
29 Sonntag, B.H. and Klein, K.K. 1977. Prospects and problems in interdisciplinary research at Canadian research stations. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25:53–62.Google Scholar
30 Tanaka, D.L., Krupinsky, J.M., Liebig, M.A., Merrill, S.D., Ries, R.E., Hendrickson, J.R., Johnson, H.A., and Hanson, J.D. 2002. Dynamic cropping systems: and adaptable approach to crop production in the Great Plains. Agronomy Journal 94:957–961.Google Scholar