Interest in the cultivation of goldenseal is increasing and this may have benefits for agriculture, human health, and conservation. To enable a better understanding of growing conditions, cultivation methods reported in the literature were reviewed, 21 natural goldenseal populations in the northern portion of its natural range in North America were described and analyzed in terms of population size and health, and 15 successful growers were interviewed on requirements for optimal cultivation. Growing conditions in the wild were compared to those reported in the cultivation literature. Summary of data from natural populations suggests goldenseal grows best in mixed hardwood forests, under 60–65% shade, in moist sandy loam soils high in organic matter, with pH 5.7 to 6.3. Similarly, review of the literature suggests that goldenseal grows best in moist, well-drained loams high in organic matter, with pH 5.5 to 6.5. Reported shade requirements vary but 47–80% shade is considered optimal. Growing conditions reported by growers were also consistent with the cultivation literature and similar to conditions of wild populations. Although optimal growing conditions are similar to those for many crops, goldenseal is relatively robust and can grow well in a variety of conditions including wet, predominantly sandy or clay soils with pH as low as 4.8 and as high as 7.8. Cultivation can utilize a ginseng crop infrastructure and goldenseal has been recommended as a rotation crop for ginseng. Commercial production of goldenseal is potentially advantageous because (1) it is an environmentally friendly crop; (2) it has been grown successfully far outside its natural range, is easy to grow, and is considered potentially profitable; and (3) it is relatively inexpensive, having low energy, land area, and fertilization requirements. Development of a sustainable crop may contribute to the protection of native wild germplasm, which can provide valuable material for crop improvement.

Emergent research shows how some farmer groups in the United States are gaining visibility as a critical knowledge community, making important contributions to the ecological health and overall sustainability of the natural resource base. This study focuses on funded farmer research projects in the north central region, to analyze the process and outcome of local inquiry embodied in the discursive contents of reports to a funding agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program. The analyses suggest that farmers' locality-specific agricultural practices may constitute a reflective and learning community, generating local knowledge keenly attuned to an underlying value system that supports actions towards sustainability.

What is the mission of agriculture and what techniques are used to accomplish the mission? This paper examines mission statements of agribusiness companies, agricultural producers, and environmental groups. One hypothesis is that agricultural producer groups share missions and objectives with environmental groups and their mission statements should demonstrate shared goals. A second hypothesis is that agricultural producer groups do not share missions or objectives with agribusiness companies and their respective mission statements should demonstrate their lack of common interests. The paper also asks which of these three groups will be the best sources of intellectual and other support as land-grant universities strive to fulfill their respective missions. It is not obvious from the mission statements that the three groups studied share missions or objectives. The mission statements neither reveal clear information on the second hypothesis, that agricultural producers do not share missions or operational objectives with agribusiness companies, nor do the mission statements demonstrate their lack of common interests. Analysis of mission statements is one place to learn which groups have common goals and should work together. But this is only a beginning.

Sustainable cropping systems use crop diversity as a foundation to reduce the environmental impacts of agrichemicals and risks of pest and disease outbreaks. Although greater diversity in the agricultural landscape is an important goal, the decisions of individual farmers determine the diversity of crops used in each farming system. Therefore, it is essential to gain an understanding of important factors in farmers' decisions as part of any proposed solution to low crop diversity. Our objective was to develop and test an integrated socioeconomic model of farmers' decisions on crop rotations as an indicator of overall crop diversity. The model incorporated measures of farmers' attitudes, net household income, control over decisions, social norms, and regional location to address the social, economic, and environmental factors of crop diversity. Mail survey responses from 197 farmers from a western Corn Belt county in 1998 supplied the data for the analysis. Location had the strongest influence on crop diversity in the model, on the basis of a standardized beta statistic of 0.46 in the ordinary least squares regression analysis. Farmers in the region with the highest degree of sloping land had significantly higher crop diversity than farmers in the most productive, relatively flat area. Lower household net income and positive attitudes toward crop rotations were also associated with higher crop diversity. We believe social norms and control would exert more influence in uncertain decisions. The results of this study suggest that, to maintain and possibly expand crop diversity in the future, targeting farmers in sloping landscapes with positive attitudes toward rotations would be the best approach to focus economic incentives for diverse crop rotations and technical support from Extension. In any effort to support crop diversity greater than a typical cornsoybean rotation, it is also critical to preserve integrated forage/crop/livestock systems. Further adaptation and application of our behavioral model in other settings would help to better evaluate, understand, and target the integrated decisions people make relative to crop diversity.

Survey data from sweet corn, strawberry, apple, and potato growers in nine northeastern U.S. states were used to assess relative levels of adoption of integrated pest management (IPM). Grower adoption of an IPM system was measured by assigning numerical values for completion of specific management practices, and summing the number of practice points. Practices included those for management of soil, nutrients, weeds, diseases and insects, and education. Numerical scores were used to describe IPM adoption as a continuum, with growers classified as low, moderate, or high adopters based on their completion of practices. The relative level of IPM adoption varied among crops and states. Forty-nine percent of sweet corn growers were found to be moderateto high-level IPM adopters, while 76% of strawberry growers, 90% of potato growers, and 69% of apple growers were moderate- to high-level adopters, respectively. Variation among states with respect to adoption of IPM is described and discussed.

Environmental and social concerns about the use of capital-intensive agricultural technologies have fueled questions about the process, impact, and future direction of the system that is largely responsible for developing these technologies; that is, publicly funded agricultural research at U.S. land-grant universities. Although social scientists have analyzed the public agricultural research system and farmers' attitudes towards various capital-intensive agricultural technologies, there has been less research on farmers' attitudes toward publicly funded research that focuses specifically on lowerinput agricultural technologies that contribute to sustainability goals. This research examines farmers' attitudes toward publicly funded research on one such low-input technology, deep-bedded hoop structures for swine production. With lower capital costs and purported environmental and management advantages, hoop structures have been promoted to and adopted by growing numbers of Midwest swine producers. The study hypotheses draw on published theories of the treadmill of technology, and of innovation adoption and diffusion. Using a 1997 mail survey of Iowa swine producers (n = 298), we examined factors associated with producers' attitudes toward publicly funded research on hoop structures and found that 40% were supportive of the research, 40% were opposed, and 20% were undecided. Of the variables examined, the producer's assessment of hoop structures' contribution to sustainability, number of external knowledge sources about hoop structures, and formal education were each significantly related to support for publicly funded hoop-structure research. Two farm structure variables, marketings and percentage of income from farming, were not significantly related in this study. Future research on farmers' attitudes toward public sector agricultural research should take account of farmers' views of potential impacts of the specific technologies being researched and developed, and the nature of farmers' ties to the land-grant university system. This study clarifies the importance of farmers' perceptions and concerns about specific agricultural technologies in directing public agricultural research planning and policy toward broader sustainability goals.

This study examined the extent and nature of multifamily farms in Iowa. Based on a random sample phone survey conducted in 1997, it was found that over one-fourth (26%) of Iowa's farms would be classified as multifamily farms. Multifamily farms showed significant differences from their single-family farm counterparts in several areas. They tended to have younger operators and larger operations, and the operators were more likely to consider farming as their principal occupation. In addition, they had more diverse operations and generated larger farm and family incomes. The farms were further classified based on their annual sales. As expected, non-commercial farms (sales less than $50,000) had the lowest percentage of multifamily farms (21%). Smallcommercial farms with sales from $50,000 to $250,000 were 30% multifamily, while large-commercial farms were 35% multifamily. The study also addressed whether or not policy restrictions based on age and income would discriminate against farms due to the multifamily farm phenomenon. A logit regression analysis was performed to determine if a multifamily structure was significant in predicting whether or not a farm was small. The results showed that multifamily relations were not a significant predictor. A growing phenomenon in U.S. agriculture, namely the multifamily farm, was examined. A significant percentage of Iowa farms was found to be multifamily. There were many differences between multifamily and single-family farms, but these differences did not display any predictive power. More research is needed in order to understand multifamily farms, a structure that will likely continue to grow and influence U.S. agriculture and outreach programs.

Educators in ecological agriculture are developing learning environments that differ in three fundamental ways from conventional teaching in agricultural universities and colleges. First, increased emphasis on food and production systems will expand and complement the current focus on specific disciplines and technologies. Second, introduction of research methods and learning objectives from social sciences will broaden the potentials for students to understand the complexities of food systems and the people who make them work. Third, action research and education will move learning activities into the agroecosystems environment and the human landscape, where students will learn from a broad array of people and experiences. This design of a new learning environment will enhance the education of students to serve agricultural and food systems well into a future that is changing at an accelerating rate.

The area devoted to organic table fruit production in Switzerland remained virtually unchanged from the 1930s to the mid-1980s. However, during the last decade there has been a fivefold increase in the production area, approaching a total of 340 ha in 2000 (4.8% of the total area of table fruit production). Factors contributing to this dramatic increase include (1) new and effective non-chemical methods for pest and disease control, (2) improved management and production techniques from research and extension programs, (3) increased marketing of organic produce by supermarkets due to consumer demand, and (4) change in Swiss government policy that began to subsidize ecological performance rather than farm production. A 1994 poll of consumer demand indicated that 3 to 5% of the total apples marketed in Switzerland was organically grown, and projected a total market share of 10% in the near future. Despite this, conventional fruit growers are hesitant to convert to organic production methods because of certain risks involving (1) selection of varieties, (2) pest and disease control, (3) crop hectarage controls, (4) weed control, and (5) tree nutrition. Research and development programs are attempting to deal with these problems, to reduce the level of risk with organic production. Nevertheless, ecological considerations to optimize fruit production are strongly dictated by market conditions and consumer demand. Finally, the development of a stable organic fruit production sector will require that retailers and supermarkets make certain concessions for marketing organic fruit.