--

The Question of Sustainability

​As we mentioned in our last post, we wanted to discuss the term “sustainability” and explore how well our IWM operations are fulfilling the aspects of sustainable agriculture and conservation. The main consideration we’ve had as we’ve been conducting this research project is whether what we are doing can be done on a long-term basis. In other words, can we sustain what we are doing financially, long term, with the labor requirements, and still achieve our goal of improving our operation? That made us think about what the term “sustainability” really means.

​The term “sustainability” frequently gets mentioned when a discussion turns to a person’s belief of whether what someone else is doing is deemed to be environmentally-friendly or sound. In agriculture, it can determine whether a person perceives an ag producer as a “good” farmer/rancher or a “bad” one, depending on whether or not the agricultural practice sustains the environment or leads to the demise of the world.
 
Unfortunately, the term “sustainability” is often narrowly limited to one aspect of the matter, the use of natural resources—soil, air, water, plants, wildlife, i.e., the earth. What is forgotten is the ecological aspect is only one crucial part of the bigger “sustainability” issue.   
 
On their website, SARE (Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education) lists “3 Pillars of Sustainability” as the following:

• Profit over the long term,
• Stewardship of our nation’s land, air and water, and
• Quality of life for farmers, ranchers and their communities.

 
The Western SARE website also shares this viewpoint from Dr. John E. Ikerd, Extension Professor at the University of Missouri:  “A sustainable agriculture must be economically viable, socially responsible and ecologically sound. The economic, social and ecological are interrelated, and all are essential to sustainability. An agriculture that uses up or degrades its natural resource base, or pollutes the natural environment, eventually will lose its ability to produce. It's not sustainable. An agriculture that isn't profitable, at least over time, will not allow its farmers to stay in business. It's not sustainable. An agriculture that fails to meet the needs of society, as producers and citizens as well as consumers, will not be sustained by society. It's not sustainable. A sustainable agriculture must be all three—ecologically sound, economically viable and socially responsible. And the three must be in harmony.” 
 
We couldn’t have said it better!
 
As our project has progressed, we have made a conscious effort to note whether certain efforts match SARE’s “3 Pillars of Sustainability.” Below, we reflect on each of our IWM practices. 

Chemical IWM

​Pillar #1: Profit over the long term
 
As we will again note under the preventative IWM principle, we have a significant amount of hay harvested from some of our fields that we will not be able to market because we are not satisfied with the amount of chicory in the product. Even though we’ve tried to control the weeds, the wet weather this year made timing very difficult. We will be able to utilize this forage for our livestock, so we can’t really state that we are losing profit because we need our own hay anyway. However, we will need to be watchful to assure that we keep areas frequented by our livestock free of re-infestation since they are consuming hay with chicory (and presumably chicory seeds) and then grazing in the pastures. That takes time and money if we need to keep taking action to squelch new plants.
 
Since we have been typically using herbicides to remove chicory from our hayfields, we have accepted the fact that the alfalfa being killed is merely a necessary part of collateral damage. We have been believing that alfalfa and chicory have growth cycles that are too similar to save one but remove the other. However, our research perhaps has provided us with a solution. If the prudent, proper, and responsible use of other chemicals (such as imazamox or Raptor) helps keep highly productive grass/alfalfa fields in production, such efforts will certainly help our profit.
 
Pillar #2: Stewardship of our nation’s land, air and water
 
There is always going to be the argument that chemicals are bad for the soil. The arguments are plentiful both ways. But again, if our place is any example, our careful use of herbicides has apparently not deteriorated the soil, plant, and ecological health of our property, as suggested by the excellent diversity of grasses and forbs in our pastures and the favorable soil health tests. Although we have some weed issues, we strive to keep things in check.
 
With regard to nature and the environment, we have been told by Natural Resource and Conservation Service officials that we have wonderful ground cover on our fields and pastures. The abundance of wildlife and birds serves as proof that our farm offers wildlife habitat. Additionally, we were the recipients of the Lawrence County Conservation District’s Conservation Citizenship Award for 2019. In our humble opinion, our limited use of chemicals is thus sustaining both our operation and the natural environment.

​Pillar #3: Quality of life for farmers, ranchers and their communities
 
Over the years, our customers have been and continue to be very satisfied with the products we sell them, particularly because they know that they are buying safe, noxious weed-free hay. The cow/calf producer whose cattle we pasture is also happy and satisfied with how his animals are growing because of the quality of our pastures. We’re certain there are those who could argue with what we are doing, but, all in all, the chemical IWM practices we are implementing are ensuring that our customers and community are satisfied with what we provide them. Thus, such efforts are sustainable.

Biological IWM

​Pillar #1: Profit over the long term
 
It probably goes without saying that the use of goats is beneficial. Our operation isn’t as potentially profitable as some others in that we don’t have the larger breeding numbers some producers have—in some cases, producers raise a number of animals and sell some after they are used for grazing. We have chosen to not have the large numbers but to keep a smaller herd for the specific purpose of having a group of “experienced” munchers. We have noted that the more efficient grazers are the younger stock. The advantage to having some older animals is they literally teach the younger ones the ropes: where to go, what to eat, what to avoid, and so on. But, much like humans, the older animals don’t eat as much.
 
Because we keep the same livestock and replace as necessary, we maintain our herd through the non-grazing time of the year (i.e., winter). That means our goats need to be fed but, as previously mentioned above, we have a supply of non-marketable hay so we essentially use a product we don’t want to sell anyway. The goats do get a small, daily ration of grain, annual immunizations, and veterinary care as needed to maintain healthy body conditions, but that is an expense we are willing to absorb for the sake of the health of the animals.
 
The alternative to not having the goats would be to utilize more chemicals to control weeds after the cattle have grazed an area or use mechanical means like mowing to reduce seed production. Some places, however, are difficult and unsafe to get machinery into so goats serve a valuable purpose there. In the end, are our goats profitable? We would say they earn their keep.
 
Pillar #2: Stewardship of our nation’s land, air and water
 
There is little to no argument that goats are good for the environment (with the possible exception of the methane issue, but we’re not going there). Goats utilize forage that is, otherwise, not marketable. They provide a great natural fertilizer—we compost their bedding to be spread back onto the fields, for instance. And they keep problem weeds in check.  
 
Pillar #3: Quality of life for farmers, ranchers and their communities
 
Let’s face it. Nearly everyone loves goats, except when they get out and eat your most valuable flowers, trees, shrubs, and prize garden produce. Anyway, they’re enjoyable to have around and visitors to our farm love to watch them. Overall, we feel we can check the “sustainability” box for our biological IWM practices.

Mechanical IWM

​Pillar #1: Profit over the long term
 
As with many mechanical IWM practices, mowing takes time and fuel. The obvious issue, at least from our practical experience, is that while mowing alone may control the spread of chicory because it reduces the seed producing flowers and, perhaps, the carbohydrate storage capacity of the weed, it does not eliminate the main problem, the presence of live chicory plants. The other concern is that, when a pasture or hayfield is mowed on a repeated basis to keep the chicory from flowering and maturing, the plant simply flowers at a lower height and has to be mowed at a lower level with each consecutive mowing. Whatever forage is cut off is probably not going to be consumed by livestock and certainly will not be harvested. If the weather conditions allow, hay could be cut and harvested before the first chicory flowers develop but, again, as we have seen, chicory recovers far faster than the grasses and other legumes. To avoid the chicory from developing a new set of flowers and going to seed, another round of cutting would have to take place before the grasses and alfalfa are ready for harvest. Thus, a subsequent cutting (hay crop) would not be harvestable.
 
Apart from mowing, a producer can hand pull the problem weeds in a field between cuttings if the field is small enough for that practice to be manageable. As our own efforts proved, this is an option. However, it takes time and manpower and is labor intensive.
 
In the end, all of this can affect the long-term profitability of an operation. Non-harvested hay does not generate income. Pasture forage cut and laid on the ground may not be consumed by the livestock. Mechanical control alone highly reduces potential income, and no income equates to less profit.
 
Pillar #2: Stewardship of our nation’s land, air and water
 
It could be said that, with mowing, no chemical needs to be applied to the ground. As we have seen, though, chicory that is mowed remains in the fields and pastures. If the mechanical means can be sustained, the plant population may be affected over time. This is not what we are practically observing, but it is theoretically possible.
 
The point here is defining “stewardship.” Are the mechanical practices environmentally-friendly? Other than fuel being consumed, one could argue that nothing else is harming the environment. But what if we consider another aspect of stewardship. Is the production and quality of the land being improved? Not so much. Repeated trips over a field with a tractor or other machinery can compact the soil, particularly if the mowing has to be done in wet soil conditions. What’s more, we have not seen a reduction in the chicory plant population by repeatedly mowing. We have, however, seen a reduction in native and tame grass and forage plants. If the stewardship goal is to improve the quality and productivity of the land, mechanical means alone may not do that.
 
Pillar #3: Quality of life for farmers, ranchers and their communities
 
As we’ve already noted, mechanical practices are time and labor intensive. They require the procedure to be done over and over. Taking all this into consideration, mechanical IWM practices have their place, but whether they improve the quality of life for the producer and create a sustainable operation would have to be a matter of opinion. 

Cultural IWM

There is no need to even list whether any of the “3 Pillars of Sustainability” were satisfied by the way we tried to plant a cover crop this year (if you missed our flop of an attempt, read our last blog post!). That being said, cover crops, if done properly, can pay huge dividends and will meet the criteria of all three parts of the sustainability definition. 

Preventative IWM

​To reflect upon current and future preventative IWM practices, we can arguably say that our chemical and biological IWM practices are sustainable, while our mechanical IWM practices have proven to be less so. With luck, we will have a better planting season next year to be able to meet the sustainable qualities in our cultural IWM practices.
 
As far as the “3 Pillars of Sustainability” are concerned, the non-marketing of a portion of our harvest obviously affects our profit margins. However, if we can utilize those products ourselves and turn those products into forage for our weed-eating goats, the loss won’t be as apparent. While the outer buffer strip we’ve created is subjected to regular, annual IWM weed control measures and may never reach full production potential, the inner areas of our farm will hopefully remain closer to a noxious weed-free status and can be areas where we can realize fuller profit potential. The sacrifice offered by the buffer will make for a better return on the rest of our property. What’s more, by focusing the IWM practices on a smaller portion of our entire operation, hopefully fewer chemicals will be required and the remaining parts of our farm can remain healthier. Ultimately, we will be satisfied if our preventative efforts result in an overall productive, profitable operation, one that we will be able to sustain and manage for many years to come.
 
That’s all for now! Next month, we will finish up this year’s series of posts with a brief summary and a recap of any final research results. As always, if you haven’t already signed up for our newsletter on our website or Facebook page, we invite you to do so by following this link. See you soon!