Low‐Input Agriculture: Trends, Goals, and Prospects for Input Use

Low-input agriculture (LIA) has reemerged as an issue of the day. It was last a topical issue during the 1970s energy crisis, when the focus was on reducing our reliance on petroleumbased inputs (Klepper et al.). LIA's current popularity is similarly motivated but supported by growing evidence of environmental and health risks from agrichemicals. The drop in commodity prices and farm equity value which occurred between 1981-87 has rekindled interest in developing cost-reducing technologies. Accumulated evidence on groundwater quality effects of nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides (Nielsen and Lee) has triggered numerous state and federal proposals and administrative actions with respect to agrichemicals and the environment. Concerns about costs of production and environmental effects are formalized in a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) statement which supports research and education on "alternative farming systems that decrease or optimize the use of purchased inputs and that can increase net cash returns . . . through decreased costs of production (and) may effectively improve the competitive position of the farmer and decrease the potential for adverse environmental impacts" (USDA). We question whether widespread employment of systems that concurrently meet these multiple objectives can occur under existing technology, farm policy, and economic conditions. Our argument rests on two basic assumptions: profit maximization is a strong motivation for production decisions, and externality issues are the driving force for public ncouragement of intervention to selectively reduce purchased input use. We hypothesize that current "high" demand for agrichemicals coincides with profit-maximizing levels of input use. To the extent that empirical evidence supports this hypothesis, the real debate involves the forms of intervention available to internalize externalities.