Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - RE: [Market-farming] ENVIRONMENTAL Benefits of organic and IRV over "conventional" farming

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rick Williams" <mrfarm AT frontiernet.net>
  • To: <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [Market-farming] ENVIRONMENTAL Benefits of organic and IRV over "conventional" farming
  • Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:12:47 -0600

Jill Taylor Bussiere wrote:

> In addition to those mentioned above, there are other benefits resulting
> from organic farming and intensive rotational grazing. According to an
> article entitled "Environmental Benefits of Improved Grazing
> Management" by
> Robert Hendershot, Resource Conservationist for the Natural Resources
> Conservation Service, "the environmental benefits of well managed pasture
> include reduced soil erosion; improved air and water quality; better plant
> diversity, vigor and production, and an improved fish and
> wildlife habitat."

Good information. Laura Paine, who is on some of our grazing lists was a
major player in investigating manure run off issues. And we have some good
science that shows that manure placed by the livestock in a dispersed
environment has dramatically lower run-off compared with spread manure.

We switched over several years ago so that all tillable/pasture acres are
completely grass based here at Misty Ridge Farm. There are a few negatives,
but for us the positives outway them by quite a bit. Even though a farm
visit by the District Conservationist (who at the time was with the the
Wisconsin Grazing Specialist) pointed out that because our farm was
completely converted to grass and with full perimeter fencing, grazing
season water system (at our own expense), we were at quite a disadvantage in
getting any subsidy money since there would soon be the end of the AMTA
payments and of course with no "crops," no LDP either.

But Judy was at a session at FSA a week ago and while it is difficult to
understand all the nuances of the government programs, it looks like we can
still keep our official "corn base," and this may help us stay in programs
to keep at least a little bit competitive:) I personally do not support
these programs, but most farmers desperately want them and lobby hard for
them so we have them. The one place that I am very pleased with, and I think
will have some serious conservation impact for the long term, is the new
Three Level Tiered System for conservation. I am not clear on whether this
is in addition to or replaces the AMTA payment, but either way, it is my
preference for subsidies to farms. At this time even the NRCS heads don't
really know what the Tiered system will have a requirements.

Because of our farms' layout, we do quite a bit of wildlife habitat
improvement on our own. Grazing farms, particularly the ones that do not
produce row crops (except for the market garden:), provide a huge benefit to
the society and for that matter the world because of the carbon
sequestration and the watershed improvement. Most farmers will have a
difficult time donating to the environment without some monetary incentives
to make it possible. I have run into more than a few cynics who felt that
the Tier system would be removed from the farm bill after the elections, but
as I expected this did not happen. The amount of money that is projected for
this program is going to be in the several of billions of dollars. Not much
in terms of the total when you spread it out, but it is all "Green Box"
money and does not impact the agricultural subsidies under the WTO.

> "The deteriorating quality of Wisconsin's ground and surface waters is of
> growing public concern. Inadequate management of livestock manures and
> over-application of commercial fertilizers are now considered
> major sources
> of nitrate leaching and phosphorus runoff in the state.

The CAFO rules do address this issue and as time goes on with virtually
everyone being mandated to have an NMP for their AFO, no matter how small it
seems, and they will be severely restricted for run off. And the more
science we have on this, the more fine tuning will be required. There is
some talk that even folks who have a "few" horses will come under the NMP
but I will have to see it to believe it since those folks will likely use
the democratic process to modify things a bit:)

> Organic farming eliminates commercial fertilizer applications, and IRG
> eliminates confined animal waste disposal.

This is probably a bit of an overstatement in our area. Organic farms do use
fertilizer and I know of one very large operation that brings in huge
quantities of manures and composts the manure on the ground at this time.
That may not be permitted with future NMP's. They are only a few 100 feet
from a nearby creek. Also, there are commercial products that organic
farmers do use for fertilizers such as greensand. You do have to put back
the minerals that you take off the farm.

MiG (Management intensive Grazing), which is my preferred term because the
emphasis is on the management, does not eliminate confined animal waste
disposal in toto. This would only be true for part of the year. Depending
upon the livestock operation, confinement is still required for part of the
year, but it does ease the situation. In more temperate climates, e.g., some
parts of Calif., Oregon, etc. it can be an all year around solution.

> Manure that is stored or treated in systems
> promoting anaerobic conditions, such as liquid lagoons, ponds, tanks, or
> pits, tends to promote more CH4 than that on pasture or range, which
> decomposes aerobically, producing very little or no CH4. Feedlot cattle
> which are fed a high energy grain diet generate manure with high
> CH4-producing capacity.

This is why it will likely be a requirement to have methane/electric plants
or some kind of cogeneration at the larger farms. In fact, this is going to
be one of the extras for the largest operations, because they will have an
additional revenue source. The Carl Theunis farm is a good example here in
the state with a methane turbine.

> Range or grazed cattle fed a low energy diet of
> forage material produce manure with about 50 percent of the CH4-producing
> potential of feedlot cattle manure. (Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas
> Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000 April 2002 EPA 430-R-02-003)

The main issue will be ... how to convince the public that they need to buy
cattle finished on grass instead of finished in a feedlot. Just one
clarification here ... most cattle are grazed for much of the their life as
a rule, it is just the finishing that requires the large amount of grain
feeding to produce a product that the consumer actually wants to buy.

> "We found that converting cropland to grassland, such as in the
> Conservation
> Reserve Program (CRP) significantly reduces N2O emissions from
> agriculture.

This is a strange comment and maybe I am misinterpreting it, but CRP land is
NOT used for agricultural purposes and in fact, it is illegal to do so
except in extreme circumstances such as drought conditions where the
government allows cutting for hay.

"Agriculture is the main source of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)
emissions. CH4 emissions from domestic ruminants, animal waste and rice
fields were estimated to be 65-100 (IPCC, 1992; Hogan, 1993), 20-30 (Safley
et al., 1992) and 25.4-54 (IPCC, 1996) Tg/yr. N2O is produced primarily by
microbial processes in the soil (Bouwman, 1990; Duxbury and Mosier, 1993).
It was estimated that more than 75% of the anthropogenic N2O sources are
derived from agriculture, the total amount was 4.2Tg N2O-N/yr (Mosier et
al., 1998b)." (Methodological and Technological issues in Technology
Transfer Chapter 11.2.2, United Nations

Good information.

Sincerely,

Rick Williams
Misty Ridge Farm
Direct marketed dairy beef and produce
(also dairy heifers and beef stockers)
Viroqua, WI










Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page