Tag archive

research

Where Scientists and Farmers Converge: The Summerland Research and Development Centre

in 2024/Crop Production/Current Issue/Grow Organic/Tools & Techniques/Winter 2024

By Annelise Grube-Cavers

This fall, as part of the BC Organic Conference, attendees had the opportunity to tour the Summerland Research and Development Centre. It was quite exciting to wander around the 80s era research center perched on a hill above Okanagan Lake (if you get excited about that kind of thing, of course, and I venture that farmers do).

This tour was supported by the BC Climate Agri-Solutions Fund (BCCAF). BCCAF provides funding to support producers in adopting beneficial management practices (BMPs) in three specific areas: nitrogen management, cover cropping and rotational grazing. In addition, the program funds activities to support the adoption of BMPs—such as this tour!

The centre really does bring to mind desert landscapes from images of NASA space stations or bomb testing zones. The building is a bit of a bunker, architecturally speaking, and the surrounding terrain is the typical dry scrubby grassland of the Okanagan. But instead of launching rockets, this center is the jumping-off point for the research needs of a slower-moving science—one that regularly takes generations to make it to the mainstream: the genetic diversity and breeding of tree fruits. There are other fields of research as well (30 different programs in total!), including cover cropping and intercropping studies, as well as the testing and monitoring of biological controls, but the longest running research trials are all tree-fruit-based.

We were greeted upon entering the facility by Knowledge and Technology Transfer program specialist and biologist, Jesse MacDonald. He offered to show us around the gardens and field areas after our more formal facility tour. The offer was extended “even if only a couple of people were interested.” Hours later our entire group of some 40-odd agriculturalists disbanded as the sun went down, following a thorough introduction to several varieties of cherry (all named starting with S since they were developed there in Summerland).

The research centre is a fascinating space—we witnessed presentations on field trials as well as scholarly research. I learned, for the first time, about lentils being used as an in-row cover crop in vineyards and orchards (later in the conference we heard from Gene Covert that he had experienced reduced powdery mildew in the areas of his vineyard where lentils had been planted).

I only wish that there were more field research centres looking at other diverse crops. Jesse noted that there had previously been livestock and field crop components at the research centre, but that tree fruits had been the primary focus, including the breeding program had started in the 1930s. Now it seems that forage and animal feed research happens in Agassiz, field crops are largely studied in Ontario, and vineyard and tree fruit research dominate at the Summerland Research Centre, though more research centres are sprinkled across the country. Research priorities are sometimes industry driven, but government funding is almost entirely determined by national priorities, which don’t always capture the research needs of the smallest and most diverse systems.

Molly Thurston, a tree fruit and cherry grower with orchards in Lake Country and Creston, notes that in her experience the impact and success of the Research Centre has had one caveat: access. In other words, can farmers reach scientists, and is the research coming from the centre readily available to producers?

Our tour felt like a step to improving accessibility going forward, with many more opportunities to share the research in the future. There is fascinating research being done, and ensuring that the people who need to utilize the practices under research can learn about them, question them them, and implement them on-farm, is essential to making that research worthwhile. When it comes to adaptation for climate change, the push to bring research to producers is even more expedient.

For participant Sarah Martel, the biological and pest control aspects of the tour were the most applicable and interesting. “It’s great that there is some research being done that applies to organic growers,” she said. The rigorous testing and assessments of possible controls, and past examples of biological control gone wrong, reinforced the importance of treating our natural ecosystems with respect.

Within the system of nationally-selected priorities, there is apparently also room for innovation and collaboration. A new Indigenous garden at the Summerland Research Centre hosts stsǝrsɬmix (oregon grape) and soopalallie among many other native species, and is centered around a large Ponderosa pine. Originally, the goal was to have this garden accessible to the public, but it ended up being planted behind a tall locked gate. Perhaps the garden will spill down beyond the gate and the riches of research and knowledge will become more accessible soon.

For more information on how to learn from researchers at the centre, or to read about possibilities for on-farm collaborations and research visit: bit.ly/3OEyIhS

Annelise raises pasture-raised livestock with her partner Steve at Fresh Valley Farms on unceded Secwepemc territory outside of Armstrong, BC. They have two farm kids and have just started an adventure in agri-tourism because life wasn’t busy enough… 

freshvalleyfarms.ca

This project was supported by the BC Climate Agri-Solutions Fund; delivered by the Investment Agriculture Foundation. Funding for the BC Climate Agri-Solutions Fund was provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through the Agricultural Climate Solutions – On-Farm Climate Action Fund.

Featured image: Grapes ripe for harvest at Kalala Estate Winery. Credit: Maylies Lang.

You might be interested in

Building a Relationship-Oriented Approach to Research

in 2024/Crop Production/Current Issue/Indigenous Food Systems/Land Stewardship/Seeds/Tools & Techniques/Winter 2024

Effects of Organic Amendments on Soil Health Indicators in an Indigenous Farm in the Northern Peace River Region of Canada

By Tiffany Traverse

[Editor’s note: This research was presented at the First International Forum on Agroecosystem Living Labs, October 4-6, 2023, Montréal, QC, Canada, and is shared here with gratitude. This article was prepared with the support of Tiffany Traverse for the BC Organic Grower—the full research team is credited at the end of this article, with thanks.] 

Indigenous knowledge is cumulative, holistic, dynamic, and inclusive of all variants of knowledge, including, but not limited to, science, cosmology, spirituality, language, politics, and law. It is relationship-oriented, place-based, intergenerational, and validated by lived experience and time.

The historical, cultural and socio-economic context of Indigenous agriculture is different from the context of conventional agriculture. Some Indigenous farmers practice closed loop organic farming by recycling nutrients within their system. The belief of “everything is connected” is the key concept that “soil and soul” are connected, and thus should be honored to sustain the life in continuum. 

Figure 5b – Core Producer and Small Plot Sites. Credit: Tiffany Traverse.

Closed loop farming guarantees carbon returns to a local system. The benefits of closed loop farming include:

  • Increased soil carbon sequestration; 
  • Increased biodiversity; 
  • Increased nutrient availability; and 
  • Reduced pest and disease issues.

Maintaining soil health and fertility development is the key for sustainability of agriculture and food security. Indigenous communities have been practicing farming based on traditional skill and knowledge since time immemorial. With an aim to allow Indigenous communities to integrate western science into their Indigenous knowledge, a study on evaluating the soil health and quality was carried out at Fourth Sister Farm in Progress, BC. Effects of five different type of farmyard manure (FYM), namely, bovine, swine, equine, poultry, and vermi-compost on soil health indicators, were tested in a two-year pilot project from 2021-2023. 

In addition to better understanding the effects of the five different manure types on soil health, the study also sought to develop a greater understanding of Indigenous community research priorities related to Indigenous agriculture, which can support the co-creation of larger strategic research collaborations.

Second year oat crop. Credit: Tiffany Traverse.

Material and Methods

The study followed a decolonial approach to research, from consultation, co-development, and execution by the Indigenous farmer. This included plot size, seed and seeding techniques, traditional/manual, and phenology, resulting in food and seed.

The crop investigated in the first year was Fava bean (Vicia faba), and the second-year crop was oats (Avena sativa). Soil samples were collected before seeding of crops for baseline data on soil health and nutrients. Next, five FYM treatments and one control plot were replicated four times following complete random block design. Rhizosphere sampling was carried out during the peak growing season (mid-July/August), and final soil sampling was collected immediately after the harvesting in September in each year. Soils were tested for key soil health parameters: soil organic carbon (SOC), total nitrogen (TN), aggregate stability, microbial biomass, bacterial/fungal diversity, and biomass in the rhizosphere. 

Harvesting first year broad bean crop for analysis. Credit: Tiffany Traverse.

The results of soil tests revealed the following:

  • Soil health parameters did not differ by FYM type by the end of two growing seasons (P > 0.05);
  • Bacterial relative abundance was not impacted by manure application type;
  • Fungal richness only responds with vermi-compost; 
  • Aggregates were more stable in vermi-compost treated soils; and
  • Richness may have increased between years, but sample analysis methods may be confounding the results.
Phenological changes and moon phases during the growing season. Credit: Tiffany Traverse.

Overall, the study found no impact of different FYM treatments on the following soil health indicators: aggregate stability, SOC, mineralizable carbon, microbial biomass carbon (MBC), and root colonization. There was little impact of manure on fungal community structure after only one season. 

More time is required to see community shifts and change in soil health indicators. 

Figure 2a depicting soil carbon and nitrogen levels after two growing seasons. Credit: Tiffany Traverse.
Figure 4 shows the relative abundance of micro-organisms in various manures. Credit: Tiffany Traverse.
Figure 2b, depticting soil carbon and nitrogen levels after two growing seasons. Credit: Tiffany Traverse.

Fourth Sister Farm is collaborating with the Peace Region Living Lab. Agricultural Climate Solutions-Living Lab is a producer-led innovation project supported by research to store carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Peace region Living lab is a AAFC funded five-year project (2022-2027) with the goal to “Enhancing Agroecosystem Services in the Peace River Region.” 

This research was conducted by: Erin Hall (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada), Tiffany Traverse (Fourth Sister Farm, Progress, British Columbia), Patrick Neuberger (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada), Monika Gorzelak (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada), Bharat Shrestha (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Beaverlodge Research Farm, Beaverlodge, Alberta).

Acknowledgements: Greg Semach; Denis Belisle; Sarah Preston; Andrea Brown; Sam Nahli; Noabur Rahman; Stewart Garson;  Irene Murray

This initiative was funded by the Indigenous Science Partnership Program (IASPP) of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Featured image: Shelling beans. Credit: Tiffany Traverse.

You might be interested in

Agriculture and Conservation at Alaksen National Wildlife Area

in 2023/Climate Change/Crop Production/Fall 2023/Land Stewardship/Living with Wildlife/Tools & Techniques

Jordy Kersey

The Alaksen National Wildlife Area (Alaksen) is a protected wildlife area in Delta, BC that utilizes agricultural production to provide habitat for migratory birds and other protected species. The area is unique in that the farmland is used to produce forage and habitat for the migratory waterfowl as well as cash crops (annual vegetables).

Maintaining economic and agronomic viability alongside wildlife and habitat conservation is increasingly challenging due to climate crisis pressures, high-water tables, and soil degradation. Due to recent mandates, Alaksen farmers are now required to eliminate farming practices that adversely impact the environment and breadth of species that inhabit the wildlife area. Alternatively, they are moving towards utilization of organic-regenerative methods that are less deleterious and impactful. There is a need to determine how organic-regenerative management methods can effectively be implemented on these farms to sustain production, but also reduce degradation of habitat into the future.

Over the last four farming seasons, agricultural scientists from the Sustainable Agricultural Landscapes Lab at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and the Institute for Sustainable Food Systems at Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU) have evaluated conditions and challenges impacting crop production at Alaksen, as well as the crop rotation scheme that is currently used. A range of plot-level studies have been conducted to assess the feasibility of an organic-regenerative farming method and to better understand the interactions between farm activities and wildlife habitat provision.

Cabbage plots at Alaksen. Credit: Jordy Kersey.

Following a baseline assessment, a suite of projects to bridge the gap between meeting production goals and maintaining conservation of wildlife habitat and waterfowl populations have been conducted using organic-regenerative approaches. These projects include (but are not limited to): evaluation of organic insect and weed pest management alternatives; development and evaluation of alternative tillage and organic amendment regimes; investigation of some alternative crops and their market potential; and an evaluation of alternative cover cropping approaches. This project is set to continue into the next five years, with research directed at specific organic-regenerative farming methods that have been observed to be promising in this environment and ultimately to investigate a whole farming system that employs organic-regenerative farming practices.

These organic-regenerative methods have potential to not only reduce the environmental harm of the farming system, but also promote soil health and support successful vegetable crop production. Organic-regenerative management may help to increase soil organic matter which can improve soil aggregate stability, and in turn improve soil water dynamics. Increased soil organic matter is also associated with building of soil health and is an indicator of soil fertility. Reducing the synthetic inputs to the system may help to reduce residual pesticides and herbicides within the soil profile and those lost to surrounding water ways. Migratory waterfowl depend on these fields as habitat and farmers depend on these fields for income, so replacing synthetic inputs with organic alternatives and cultivating a healthy soil to effectively support crop disease, weed suppression, and avoid soil degradation is imperative for both wildlife conservation goals and sustained production.

Trial plots at Alaksen. Credit: Jordy Kersey.

In contrast to many of the potential benefits of transitioning to certain organic-regenerative practices, there are also concerns that may constrain adoption in some areas, including providing adequate crop nitrogen through organic amendments, avoiding an excess or deficit of phosphorus, retaining comparable crop yields, and effective replacement of herbicides with increased tillage intensity.

Application of organic amendments compared to the typical synthetic NPK applied at Alaksen did not significantly reduce growing season plant-available nitrogen nor did it reduce onion and cabbage crop yield over the two years this experiment was conducted. We did, however, find differences in weed pressure with varying tillage intensity. Plots with application of conventional herbicide had significantly less weed pressure and required less labor than plots with no herbicide application. However, increasing tillage intensity also reduced weed pressure, indicating that greater tillage intensity (more passes) may be an effective replacement for weed suppression in these systems. This was particularly apparent in alternative crops such as butternut squash, with the plant structure shading out most weeds by the middle of the growing season. Further research must be conducted to determine how an increase in weed pressure with the elimination of herbicide would impact farm labour costs and how strongly the weed pressure impacts crop yields of other rotation phases.

Onion harvest. Credit: Jordy Kersey.

In addition to alternative farming practices, changes in crop and cultivar selections at Alaksen may reduce growing season constraints, leading to reduced reliance on conventional pesticides and improved cover crop establishment. Adequate cover crop establishment is required to provide sufficient forage for migratory waterfowl over-winter; however, climactic variability in shoulder-season rainfall can cause significant issues for germination and canopy coverage. Transitioning to vegetable crops with shorter periods of maturation could provide farmers with additional days or weeks to get cover crops planted and well-established before shoulder-season rainfall sets in. Crop diversification offers additional potential for improved farm profitability and risk mitigation. Historically, farmers on Westham Island integrated crops such as peas and beans into their cropping systems, but as bird pressures have increased these regimes have often been abandoned. Identifying crops or cultivars that perform well in organic production systems, are disease resistant, and suitable to the unique environment at Alaksen is very important moving forward and in transitioning to a more sustainable cropping regime.

Alternative crops were observed to grow successfully at Alaksen compared to typical rotation crops, such as cabbage, throughout this experiment. Butternut squash, onions, and radishes were three crops that did well throughout the 2021 and 2022 growing seasons. Butternut squash yield was high but the growing season long, as the crop was ready for harvest in early October. While in that year the shoulder-season was dry, in wetter years this may cause problems with harvesting and getting cover crops planted, if rains were to set in during September. On the other hand, radishes were mature and harvested in early July. This would provide ample time for sowing and establishing winter cover crops; however, also poses the issue of barren soil for a portion of the year, until sufficient water is available for cover crop germination. Further research into the marketability of these alternative crops is still needed. The success of alternative cover cropping mixtures to withstand migratory bird grazing pressure is currently being assessed from the data collected over the past two winter seasons.

Moving into the next phase of this experiment we hope to identify combinations of organic-regenerative farming methods that synergize well in this environment for the most beneficial outcomes both in terms of production and wildlife conservation. Farm management at a plot-scale is often very different than field-scale so it is important to
recognize the need for scaling before conclusions can be made. There is also a need to investigate alternative rotation regimes and the economics of organic verses conventional production to contextualize the outcomes of this research within the Alaksen farming system. We are hopeful this research has and will continue to be insightful and provide alternative farming system management to Alaksen farmers and other interested growers in the lower Fraser Valley region.

Jordy Kersey (MSc) is a current PhD candidate in soil science working with Dr. Sean Smukler at UBC in the Sustainable Agricultural Landscapes Lab. Jordy’s research is focused on the impact of regenerative agricultural practices on climate breakdown mitigation and adaptation in the lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia. Specifically, Jordy is investigating how agricultural management practices influence soil carbon and nitrogen cycling, greenhouse gas emissions, and soil water regulation. Jordy is passionate about working towards a more sustainable future and finding meaningful ways to improve agricultural systems to combat climate crisis while continuing to feed our world. Beyond academics, Jordy is an avid cookie baker, traveler, and enjoy long hikes through the forests of the Pacific Northwest.

Featured image: Research plots at Alaksen National Wildlife Area. Credit: Jordy Kersey.

You might be interested in

Nutrient and Nitrogen Management

in 2023/Climate Change/Crop Production/Fall 2023/Grow Organic/Preparation/Soil/Tools & Techniques

Stacey Santos

Since 2012, Niki Strutynski and her husband Nick Neisingh have grown organic mixed vegetables at Tatlo Road Farm, located south of Crofton on southern Vancouver Island. With years of experience working on other organic vegetable farms throughout BC, plus Niki’s degree in Agroecology from UBC, they have created a robust nutrient and nitrogen management program to boost their farm’s fertility and yields, carrying out a soil test every two to three years depending on the area.

In an episode of Organic BC’s Organic Innovation Series, Niki took viewers through the program, highlighting their system for tracking nutrients and making decisions around nutrient applications. To complement the learnings from Niki’s on-farm system, Josh Andrews from the BC Ministry of Agriculture and Food dove deeper into why nitrogen management is important, and took viewers through a “how to” of a post-harvest nitrogen test.

Nitrogen Management in a Nutshell

Because nitrogen is the nutrient that is most-used by crops, it’s the one farmers need to build in soil in the highest quantities. It’s also a tricky one! Nitrogen is fairly mobile in the soil and has a lot of different forms, so having it in the right form for the crop at the right time can be particularly difficult.

On one hand, you want to make sure crops have enough nitrogen available to achieve optimum growth and yield. You also don’t want to overapply, because during the rainy winter months nitrogen can actually leach into groundwater (which has been a problem in certain areas of the province). Ultimately, you want to control the amount of nitrogen you’re applying so there’s as little left over at the end of the growing season as possible.

With nitrogen management, we normally talk about the agronomic rate—the rate at which the crop gets just enough nitrogen for optimum growth, but not an excessive amount. You can think of it in terms of the four R’s: the Right Source at the Right Time using the Right Rate and applying it in the Right Place. If you follow these guidelines, you can generally get good growth and yield.

Nitrogen Sources to Consider

As you work to meet the agronomic rate for nitrogen application, the calculation is not as simple as figuring out how much nitrogen your crops need. You must take into account residual nitrogen, as well as other sources of nitrogen. Cover crops and fertilizers like feather or bone meal will all contribute to nitrogen in the soil and impact the amount of nitrogen you want to apply.

The amount of nitrogen in the soil at the beginning of the growing season depends on the region and the type of operation. Drier regions, like the Interior, might have more residual nitrate from the previous growing season because of less soil leaching. And while Tatlo Road Farm receives a lot of precipitation, their organically managed soils are probably getting a fair amount of nitrogen from mineralization of soil organic matter.

Developing a Nutrient Management Calculator

For Tatlo Road Farm, the practice of calculating nutrients goes back to their first year, when they had a soil test done through a local agriculture supply business. Soil tests will show the levels of different nutrients along with recommendations about what quantities of amendments to apply. The results for Tatlo Road Farm were mostly expected—low nitrogen, which is common after a rainy winter—however, the report also featured the lowest phosphorus results the agriculture supply business owner had ever seen.

At first, to save money, Niki and Nick applied only a portion of the recommended quantities and blanket applied it on the entire growing area. But after a season of low yields, they increased the quantities and only applied it to the beds. This helped tremendously, and moving forward, they took a more calculated approach to the amount and location of applied amendments.

To help nail down the numbers and cut down on wasted money and nutrients, they worked with a soil scientist to interpret the results of their soil tests and create a nutrient calculator spreadsheet. “We use a combination of products to meet our specific demands based on the soil test,” Niki explained. “If we were just to choose one standard NPK (Nitrogen-Phosphorus-Potassium) product it wouldn’t meet our demands. I might be either short on one or over-applying another.”

“Let’s say I need 27 pounds of fish meal to meet my nitrogen needs. I might go ahead and apply that, but if I do I might over apply phosphorus. So instead, I’m going to see what happens if I apply nine pounds of fish meal, and then [the calculator] tells me the amount still remaining that needs to be applied and met by something else.”

Soil Mapping and Nutrient Calculations

All of the soil on Vancouver Island was mapped in the 1970s, and you can still look at those maps today. They show five different types of soil converging on Tatlo Road Farm’s seven-acre property—an accurate assessment, as Niki can see and feel the soil transitions.

Niki and Nick test based on the different soil type areas. Using the test results, they feed the recommended pounds per acre per crop type into the spreadsheet, which then shows how much of a specific amendment product to apply.

The spreadsheet essentially includes the same columns as the lab results, with ideal ranges pulled from the BC Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Each tab in the file represents a different field or soil type area—one test for an entire area of fairly similar soil type and also potentially similar crops. From there, they can enter a suite of different amendments and figure out how much they need to apply on a bed per bed basis.

“We have this cheat sheet in our workshop,” said Niki. “Staff can look at it and go, ‘Oh, I’m amending a bed in field three. How many pounds of each thing do I need to mix together?’”

What Niki really likes about the spreadsheet is how she can change the quantities of the amendment. If the amendment changes, or if she tries a new product, it factors in how many pounds to apply.

Cover Cropping

Tatlo Road Farm implements cover cropping wherever they can. Among the many benefits, cover crops take nitrogen up from the soil, fix nitrogen, and add other nutrients in the spring. As a bonus, because the farm doesn’t get snow cover, the cover crops also act as winter protection to minimize both leaching nutrients from the soil and compaction from the rains.

As Josh explained, “When you terminate the cover crop, it will supply nitrogen to [the summer] crop. We won’t say that 100% of the nitrogen in that crop will become available, but usually somewhere between 25% and 50% of it probably will. That can offset the amount of nitrogen fertilizer or supplemental nitrogen that you need to add for your summer crop.”

When they are not able to establish a cover crop in time for winter, Tatlo Road Farm uses tarps. Tarps help protect the soil from heavy rains and decrease the amount of nitrogen that leaches away over winter. When they pull the tarps off, the soil is “lovely” and ready to go, without needing to wait for cover crops to break down.

Post-Harvest Nitrogen Testing

At the end of the year, taking post-harvest nitrate tests will allow you to see how well you’re meeting the targets.

Post-harvest nitrate testing has two purposes: one is environmental, measuring the amount of nitrate that is susceptible to leaching during the dormant season, and the other is for the farmer’s own agronomic purposes, measuring whether too much or too little nitrogen was applied and how it affected yields.

The best time to do a post-harvest nitrate test is as soon as the crop comes off at the end of summer, or the beginning of early fall when all of the nitrogen in the soil that was going to become available to crops has become available. The timing depends on the region you’re in, but you need to do it before the nitrate is leached down through the soil profile. With coarse soils, you should test before 75mm of cumulative precipitation, and with finer soils before 125mm of cumulative precipitation.

Our soils can teach us so much about how to be better stewards of the land, and when we can listen and interpret the information held in those soils, they will in turn provide us with better yields. We hope Niki’s learnings at Tatlo Road Farm encourage you to dial in your own nutrient management systems!

How to Take a Soil Test

To obtain a soil sample, use a soil probe for the most uniform samples. Don’t have access to one? Ask your regional agrologist if you can borrow theirs! You’ll also need a bucket for mixing the samples together and a plastic baggie for sending your sample to the lab.

When taking samples, the first thing you want to do is divide the area into sampling zones with the same soil type, crop and management. For example, if you have a bunch of different rows of veggies you can group them together by their nutrient demand. Take about 15–30 samples throughout the sampling zone, tossing each sample into the bucket. Before bagging up around a pound of soil for the lab, mix and break up the samples as best as you can.

Learn more by watching our Organic Innovation Series: Nutrient and Nitrogen Management – Tatlo Road Farm: youtu.be/MAwrXt66KD0

BC Nutrient Calculator: nmp.apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca

Stacey Santos is the Communications Manager for Organic BC. She lives, writes and gardens in the beautiful and traditional territories of the Lekwungen peoples, who are now known as the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations.

This project was supported by the BC Climate Agri-Solutions Fund. Funding for the BC Climate Agri-Solutions Fund was provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through the Agricultural Climate Solutions – On-Farm Climate Action Fund.

Featured image: Mowing buckwheat at Tatlo Road Farm. Credit: Tatlo Road Farm.

You might be interested in

Growing Greener: Organic Farmers Lead the Way in Environmental Stewardship

in 2023/Fall 2023/Land Stewardship/Soil/Tools & Techniques/Water Management

Valerie Maida

Conservation and agriculture can sometimes seem to be at odds. Conservation can be seen as trying to prevent development and control activities on farms, while agricultural development of natural areas for new farms can destroy habitats, leading to frustrations on both sides. However, farmers are naturally caretakers of the land, managing the soils and water on their properties to ensure their fields will continue to be productive long into the future. There are many opportunities for conservation groups and farmers to work together that benefit both farms and the natural environment. That’s where the Okanagan Similkameen Stewardship Society (OSS) comes in.

OSS works with private landowners to partner in conservation and enhancement of wildlife habitats on their properties. Through their Wildlife Habitat Steward program, the organisation supports landowners with recognition, technical support in habitat enhancement projects, management plans, and assistance with implementation of best management practices for wildlife on their properties. Being a Wildlife Habitat Steward does not mean farmers can’t “use” their land. Wildlife Habitat Stewards still maintain their agricultural, tourism, and other land use practices on their properties while implementing best management practices for wildlife.

OSS has recently undertaken a large project in Summerland’s Garnet Valley working with a community of private landowners to control yellow flag iris at its most upstream extent in Eneas Creek. Yellow flag iris is an invasive plant from Eurasia and Northern Africa. It was originally used as an ornamental pond plant but with a complete lack of natural controls or predators, it escaped and spread across North America. At some point, the iris was planted near Eneas Creek and it has since proliferated down the creek.

Valerie Maida installing benthic barrier. Credit: Okanagan Similkameen Stewardship Society.

For property owners, the main concern with this invasive plant is that it forms dense mats across and into the water, causing the creek channel to narrow, and significantly increasing flood risk. Yellow flag iris also changes the environment both in the stream and along the banks, reducing the number of insects, which in turn reduces food for fish, birds, and other animals. It is almost unkillable—cutting, digging, and tilling do nothing to stop its growth, and any effective herbicides cannot be used near water. The only effective way to handle large infestations is to smother the plants under heavy impermeable tarps. An infestation like this one can seem impossible to manage because it is spread across so many properties.

To tackle the yellow flag iris infestation, OSS helped to create a community of stewards in the Garnet Valley to work together to do what no one landowner could manage on their own. Starting the project upstream and working downwards, OSS was able to work together with farmers both organic and conventional, as well as homesteaders, hobby farmers and others to eradicate the yellow flag from one kilometre downstream of where the original infestation started, with agreements and plans in place to continue the work for at least another 750 metres. The yellow flag iris isn’t dead yet, but it is covered and has stopped being a seed source for the rest of the creek.

Two of the wonderful landowners that we have had the pleasure of working with are Thomas and Celina Tumbach. They are owners and operators of LocalMotive Organic Delivery service and Garnett Hollow Farm, a ground crop farm tucked alongside Eneas Creek in Summerland’s Garnet Valley. They are strong believers in the organic movement and started LocalMotive nearly 20 years ago in an effort to help develop local food distribution networks and connect organic farmers with consumers in BC. For them, farming organically alongside nature instead of against it just comes naturally.

“The Tumbachs have left a significant portion of their riparian area [dense forested area around a creek or wetland] intact,” says Alyson Skinner, Executive Director with OSS. “Their participation in the program was a natural fit considering their commitment to organics and to working with nature instead of against it.”

The Tumbachs with their Wildlife Habitat Stewardship Sign. Credit: Okanagan Similkameen Stewardship Society.

Undeveloped natural areas are highly beneficial around farms. They can help prevent soil erosion, filter chemicals from water runoff, and also help protect against weather events like flooding and high winds. Intact habitats can even help improve overall production on the farm. The diversity of trees, shrubs, and flowers in high-quality habitats maintains higher numbers of native pollinators and other beneficial insects such as lacewings, butterflies, and ladybugs and the additional pollination and pest control comes with little to no outside effort. Awareness and appreciation of the intrinsic value of wild spaces on the farm are starting to gain momentum among farmers.

“Nearly half of the 130 landowners we have participating in our Wildlife Habitat Steward program are growers and producers,” notes Skinner. “Big or small, organic or conventional, they have all taken steps to improve their land stewardship, providing benefits to wildlife and production. Much of the time, like at Thomas and Celina’s, stewardship means they just allow the habitats to exist and contact us for advice or if a concern arises. Other times, we help folks improve habitat by installing nest boxes for owls and songbirds and basking platforms for turtles.”

OSS’s community of stewards in the Garnet Valley started with Steve Lornie and Christine Coletta of Okanagan Crush Pad Winery. Right from the beginning, they wanted to farm their 320-acre Garnet Valley property with as little impact on the land as possible. After going organic and getting the vineyards started they turned their attention to the far west corner that had a fallow hayfield with Eneas Creek running alongside it. Realizing it was too wet for grapes and that habitat restoration was the best use for the area, they contacted OSS for help and signed on to the Wildlife Habitat Steward program.

Over the following three years, over 2,000 native trees and shrubs were planted throughout the hayfield to help return it to the riparian forest it once was. The importance of the project quickly became apparent when, for two years in a row after the restoration started, the floodplain fulfilled its purpose by holding and slowing down millions of litres of water from rushing downstream when Eneas Creek burst its banks during freshet.

Following Okanagan Crush Pad and LocalMotive/ Garnett Hollow, a dozen properties along the Eneas Creek corridor now call themselves Wildlife Habitat Stewards. This collective effort means that over two kilometres of Eneas Creek is being cared for by growers, both organic and conventional, as well as homesteaders and others. In addition to the benefits this provides to the community, it has also created unique opportunities to undertake a shared concern in the watershed.

The stewardship community in the Garnet Valley is a good example of the growing trend among farmers and homesteaders to embrace stewardship of their land and natural habitats. These individuals recognize the importance of working with nature, not against it, in their agricultural practices. Through their participation in programs such as the Wildlife Habitat Stewards, these farmers and landowners have collectively made a significant impact on wildlife in the Garnet Valley while also reaping the benefits of maintaining natural areas around their farms.

Growers in the Okanagan and Similkameen region who are interested in OSS’s Wildlife Habitat Steward program can contact info@osstewardship.ca or 250-770-1467 to learn more about the program, or to arrange a zero-obligation site visit with a biologist to discuss what stewardship could look like for their property.

osstewardship.ca

Valerie Maida is the Stewardship Officer for Okanagan Similkameen Stewardship, a non-profit that works with landowners and managers to conserve and enhance wildlife habitat on their properties. The team at OSS collaborated on this article.

Featured image: Yellow flag iris in bloom. Credit: Okanagan Similkameen Stewardship Society.

You might be interested in

How to Sneak Biodiversity Habitat into your Farm’s Forgotten Spaces

in 2023/Climate Change/Crop Production/Grow Organic/Land Stewardship/Winter 2023

By Carly McGregor

Research conducted by Carly McGregor, Matthew Tsuruda, Tyler Kelly, Martina Clausen, Claire Kremen, and Juli Carrillo, University of British Columbia

In collaboration with Drew Bondar, Connor Hawey, and Christine Schmalz, Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust

A research collaboration between the University of British Columbia (UBC) and Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust (DF&WT) showed how marginal spaces on farms can promote biodiversity by helping beneficial insects flourish. It is already known that these marginal spaces—when managed appropriately—benefit soil health, but they can also be a tool for farmers to support a thriving insect community.

It’s no secret that insects and farmers have a complicated relationship. While pest insects can have a devastating impact on crops, a healthy population of diverse pollinators and pest predators can make the difference between an uninspired, meager crop and a lush harvest.

Conventional farming techniques can harm biodiversity in any number of ways: synthetic pesticides have toxic health effects on organisms beyond just targeted pests; herbicide sprays reduce plant diversity and thus access to nutritional resources for other wildlife; and the frequent disturbance of natural areas can destroy wildlife habitat. That said, growers are continually caught in cost-benefit calculations, often stuck on the pesticide treadmill to maintain yields and quality harvests.

Organic farming represents a pushback against some of these practices, but comes with the added stress of not being able to rely on synthetic chemicals.

Beyond natural pesticide alternatives, another key tool in the organic grower’s belt is the effective management of non-crop zones on farms, which falls under both the crop diversification and integrated pest management pillars of organic farming. Non-crop zones can include marginal areas that aren’t ideal for growing crops, alleyways between crop rows or along field edges, and set-aside fallow fields.

Predatory ground beetle found in a grassland set-aside. Credit: Tyler Kelly.

Left alone, non-crop zones can likely provide some benefits to biodiversity, but several research studies suggest that selectively planting certain plant species in these zones can enhance their potential, especially for beneficial biodiversity such as pollinators and natural predators of crop pests (insects and birds). Several organizations in BC run stewardship programs that promote the establishment of these ‘habitat enhancements’ on farms, one of which is the DF&WT, located in Delta, BC. The DF&WT’s Hedgerow Program assists growers with the selection and planting of hedgerow trees and shrubs in crop field margins, and their Grassland Set-Aside (GLSA) program offers cost-share benefit that supports growers in establishing and keeping GLSAs for up to four years. While previous research has shown that these habitat enhancements can improve soil health, the specific effects of these enhancements on pollinators, pest insects, and natural biological control was unknown.

Our research group collaborated with the DF&WT to evaluate the success of habitat enhancements to support beneficial insects, focusing on pollinators and natural enemy insects. For field margins, we assessed DF&WT-planted hedgerows and compared them to unmanaged trees and shrubs—what we call ‘remnant’ hedgerows—as well as unplanted grassy margins. We also investigated grass-dominant ‘traditional’ GLSAs planted through the DF&WT GLSA Program, and flower-supplemented ‘pollinator’ GLSAs, which a Delta grower began planting a few years ago in an effort to support pollinators by providing diverse flowers as a foraging resource.

We observed a clear preference for the flowers on planted hedgerows by honey bees and bumble bees. We weren’t surprised, as these bees are known to love members of the rose family, including the Nootka roses planted in DF&WT hedgerows, and the Himalayan blackberry that often invades and overtops shrub plantings. We also observed slightly more ground beetles (important natural enemies of spotted wing drosophila, a highly destructive berry crop pest rampant in the Lower Mainland) in the hedgerows compared to grassy field margins.

While hedgerows appear to support more honey bees and bumble bees than grassy margins, our results showed a similar liking to both margin types by the wild pollinator community as a whole. These results may be driven by smaller wild pollinators, such as sweat bees and flower flies. Collectively, they tend to prefer the smaller weedy flowers found both in grassy margins and hedgerows, as their mouthparts do not allow them to access nectar from larger or more tubular flowers. Grassy field margins thus likely support wild pollinators in a similar capacity as hedgerows, but perhaps offer resources that are preferred by smaller bees and flower flies. We also found that they support far more pollinators than within actively-managed crop fields. Grassy field margins can also support parasitoid wasps, which may provide some biological control for spotted wing drosophila populations, since several of the weedy plants common in field margins have extrafloral nectaries that feed parasitoids.

Moving to the much larger set-asides, we observed that these supported pollinators better than active crop fields did, both with and without added flowers. Honey bees were most abundant in the pollinator (i.e. flower-supplemented) GLSAs, while bumble bees were far more common in both the traditional (i.e. grass-dominant) and pollinator GLSAs compared to the active crop fields. When examining the whole wild pollinator community, pollinator GLSAs had the highest abundance and diversity, and active crop fields had the lowest, with traditional GLSAs coming in second place.

A non-crop zone (grassy margin) with pollinator sampling traps next to a plowed crop field. Credit: Carly McGregor.

We observed many beneficial insects directly foraging for nutrients on the abundant flowers in pollinator set-asides, which suggests that this type of set-aside was providing its intended resource. Comparatively, since traditional set-asides provided few floral resources (we either observed only clovers in these fields, or no flowers at all), the higher abundance and diversity of pollinators at traditional sites suggests they may supply nesting sites for ground-nesting bees. These bees include bumble bees, which opportunistically nest in abandoned rodent nests, and many species of sweat bees, which burrow their own nests in undisturbed open ground areas. Both types of potential nesting habitat are often found in traditional set-asides. In addition to supporting pollinators, we found a much higher abundance of predatory ground beetles in pollinator set-asides compared to crop fields.

Altogether, these findings provide evidence that grassland set-asides provide key resources for beneficial insects in an agricultural setting. This is another great reason to include set-asides in regular crop rotations – they can support soil health and beneficial insects!

Our research supports non-crop areas as holding great potential for supporting beneficial insects on farms. We found that each type of non-crop area—from unmanaged grassy margins, to planted hedgerows, remnant hedgerows, and both grass-dominant and flower-supplemented set-asides—best supports some portion of the beneficial insect community. If we were to leave organic growers with one takeaway from our research, it would be that the best land management practices likely involve the inclusion of a range of natural and enhanced habitats across farmland. Although integrated land management is no simple feat, careful and diversification-minded habitat management can help harness the often-untapped conservation potential that lies in those otherwise-forgotten marginal spaces on farms.

piee-lab.landfood.ubc.ca
worcslab.ubc.ca
deltafarmland.ca

Carly McGregor is the Lab Manager for the Plant-Insect Ecology & Evolution Research Lab and is a big fan of how fuzzy bumble bees are. 

Featured image: Bumble bees visiting goldenrod flowers. Credit: Carly McGregor.

You might be interested in

The “Sweet Spot” for Farms to Enhance On-farm Biodiversity

in 2023/Climate Change/Crop Production/Grow Organic/Land Stewardship/Tools & Techniques/Winter 2023

By Kenzo Esquivel and Patrick Baur


[This article originally was originally published with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) and is shared here with gratitude.]

Looking out across his 20 acres in California’s Central Coast, a farmer reflected on his journey: “One of the things I’m probably the proudest of in our tenure here on this home farm is providing habitat and diversity,” he said. “It was a very barren place when we first got here.”

This farmer and others who prioritize on-farm biodiversity generally reap significant benefits and satisfaction from their investments. Eventually. Yet not every farmer is in a position to put the up-front time, energy, and money into diversifying their farms ecologically and economically. Despite valuing these ecological practices, many have little option but to continue down the path of specialized, input-intensive farming.

Diversified farming practices include common strategies like cover cropping, composting, and hedgerows. These and other ecological farming techniques can help a farm’s bottom line and its ability to weather disease, droughts, and floods. Cost-sharing programs, like California’s Healthy Soils Program and EQIP, exist at both state and federal levels to help farmers adopt diversified practices. Yet nationwide, adoption remains very low.

In our recently published study, we show how some diversified farms have found a “sweet spot” to expand their crop portfolio and adopt ecologically based practices like hedgerows or cover crops. Farms that sell to national or international wholesale markets tend to face steep market pressures that not only fail to reward diversity, but actively hinder it. Meanwhile smaller farms may have the interest and the incentive to diversify but lack the means to seize the opportunity. Thus, most of the highly diversified farms we identified in our study fell somewhere in between, with medium-sized acreage and farm businesses.

Map of research sites. Credit: Patrick Baur and Kenzo Esquivel

Why do mid-scale farms adopt diversification practices at higher rates?

Many growers we interviewed lacked the resources to float the up-front costs. “We’d like to have it all covered,” sighed one farmer with a 5-acre vegetable farm, “but we don’t have the money to cover [crop] everything.” These limited resource farmers face significant financial restraints due to short or uncertain land tenure and limited access to capital. These were also the smallest farms, ranging between one and 20 acres. While farmers in this group often expressed desire to adopt more diversification practices, they often lacked the time, money, and financial stability to cover the cost of biodiversity-enhancing practices that might take years to pay off. “If you’re leasing, you’re not going to plant perennials,” explained one technical assistance provider. While some limited resource farmers were aware of cost-sharing programs, they told us that the applications were overwhelming and took too much time.

Other growers, meanwhile, had the financial means but found themselves locked into market channels that could not accommodate a more diverse rotation of crops, or which actively discouraged certain forms of on-farm biodiversity due to food safety fears. “What used to be a windbreak is now a hazard,” said one large-scale grower when asked about hedgerows. “We’re pretty much forced to abide by the rules that are given to us [by our buyers],” explained another. Such wholesale growers, operating at the other end of the spectrum with farms of 500 acres or more, were limited by requirements imposed by their buyers, slim margins in the wholesale market, and high land values. From strict planting schedules to restrictions on compost and non-crop vegetation motivated by food safety concerns, these wholesale growers faced inflexible market constraints to increasing on-farm diversity. Consolidated supply chains in the region leave few other market options for growers who operate at this scale, and their management philosophy tends to emphasize control and “cleanliness” over diversity.

Thus, limited resource farmers and wholesale growers, while vastly different in size, both face significant hurdles to adopting diversified farming practices. While conditions at either end of the spectrum are discouraging, we discovered that mid-scale farmers, ranging between 20 and 350 acres, were often able to circumvent these constraints. However, higher levels of diversification practices did not automatically emerge through “right-sized” farm scales alone.  Mid-scale farmers also had the highest levels of secure land tenure and access to capital and resources. Critically, they had also built relationships with buyers (e.g., high-traffic farmers markets, high-end local retailers) who shared their values and were willing to pay a premium for the produce they grow. The combination of financial security and sympathetic buyers gave these mid-scale growers a degree of autonomy and control not available to either the limited-resource or wholesale farmers. The mid-scale farmers we interviewed told us they chose how to grow their crops and where to sell their crops because they had the economic security to weather the short-term risks and wait for long-term returns on their investment in cultivating highly biodiverse farms.

A view of varied lettuce crops. Credit Patrick Baur and Kenzo Esquivel

Policies should mitigate scale-specific barriers

Policies aiming to help farmers invest in on-farm biodiversity must consider that different types of farms face unique barriers and incentives to diversify. Small-scale farmers will benefit from targeted policies that alleviate limitations in time, money, and social capital. In particular, policies that secure long-term land tenure for new-entry and socially disadvantaged farmers and increase access to water, technical assistance, and diverse markets beyond direct-to-consumer should be prioritized. Existing incentive programs should streamline application processes, increase publicity, provide enrollment assistance, and create opportunities for farmer-to-farmer sharing of personal success stories with programs like EQIP.

Meanwhile, large-scale wholesale growers need help negotiating the restrictive demands of their supply chains. Our findings suggest new avenues for policies to create more robust alternative markets that value and encourage diversification. We also see an opportunity for regulations that push wholesale buyers to reward growers for their diversification practices. Food safety policies are another important area for intervention. Making headway on adoption of diversified farming practices among wholesale farmers may require supplementing the “pull” of incentives at the farm level with the “push” of new biodiversity-based procurement requirements at the buyer level and further down the supply chain.

While our study is limited to organic lettuce farms on California’s Central coast, we believe that researchers and policymakers in other regions may find the construction of a similar “farming model” typology a useful framework to identify the enabling factors and structural barriers that different types of farmers face. In particular, we see strong resonance between this “sweet spot” for biodiversity-based farms and the broader attention to an “agriculture of the middle” as a pathway to restore local and regional food economies damaged by consolidation and concentration in many farm sectors.

Helping farmers invest in and reap the benefits of diversification means identifying and dismantling scale-specific barriers and promoting the financial and market conditions that allow farmers to settle on business models and scales that are neither too big nor too small to diversify, but just right.

Full study: bit.ly/3HQGZMO

Companion Study: bit.ly/3HrXFsp

Kenzo Esquivel is a PhD candidate in Environmental Science, Policy, and Management at UC Berkeley. Patrick Baur is an Assistant Professor in Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems in the Department of Fisheries, Animal, and Veterinary Sciences at the University of Rhode Island

Featured image: Lettuce farm in California. Credit: Patrick Baur and Kenzo Esquivel.

You might be interested in

The More the Better? Multi-Species vs Single-Species Cover Crops for Carrots

in 2022/Crop Production/Fall 2022/Grow Organic/Seeds/Tools & Techniques

By Frank Larney, Haley Catton, Charles Geddes, Newton Lupway, Tom Forge, Reynald Lemke, and Bobbi Helgason

This article first appeared in Organic Science Canada magazine and is printed here with gratitude.

In recent years, diverse cover crop mixes or ‘cocktails’, which contain as many as 15 different cover crop species, have gained popularity. Are these multi-species cover crop mixes any better than their less sophisticated counterparts (e.g., fall rye or barley/pea)? It’s a complicated system to untangle. Our early data suggests that the multi-species mixes can foster more active soil life, but that they could also have impacts on the following crop: they caused more forked carrots, which decreases profit. We also looked closely at how weeds in the cover crops affected soil fertility. Spoiler alert, they may be helping…

Cover crops can provide many benefits including enhanced soil organic matter and soil health, nitrogen retention, weed suppression, soil moisture conservation and, as a result of these, higher subsequent crop yields. Cover crops can be grown in the main season (replacing a cash crop in rotation) or seeded in fall to protect the soil from wind and water erosion throughout winter and early spring. In our study funded by the Organic Science Cluster, we compared how different cover crops impacted the soil, pests, and the following crop.

The control cover crop treatment which was essentially a fallow predominated by lamb’s quarters, cleavers, and redroot pigweed, July 30, 2018. Maybe weeds are not all that bad? …as long as they don’t go to seed before soil incorporation. Credit: Frank Larney.

Our research team collaborated with Howard and Cornelius Leffers who run an irrigated organic farm near Coaldale, Alberta. They specialize in carrots and red beets for restaurants, farmers’ markets and organic grocery stores, and they also grow alfalfa, winter wheat and dry beans. We evaluated seven cover crop treatments ahead of carrots. We have completed two cycles of the two-year cover crop–carrot rotation (Cycle 1: 2018 & 2019, Cycle 2: 2019 & 2020), with a third cycle (2021 & 2022) currently underway. Cover crops were established in June during the first year of each cycle as follows:

Buckwheat;

  1. Faba bean;
  2. Brassica (white + brown mustard);
  3. Mix*;
  4. Mix* followed by barley which grew until the first killing frost;
  5. Mix* followed by winter wheat which survived the winter, regrew in early spring, then was terminated by tillage; and
  6. Control (no cover crop, weeds allowed to grow).
  7. *Mixture of five legumes, four grasses, two brassicas, flax, phacelia, safflower, and buckwheat (15 species in total)
Fagopyrum esculentum Moench, Polygonum fagopyrum L. Credit: Johann Georg Sturm.

In August, all treatments and the control were incorporated into the soil by disking. The control and treatments 1-4 were left unplanted over the winter; weeds were allowed to grow. Treatments 5 and 6 were seeded to other cover crops. In the second year of each cycle, carrots were planted in June and harvested in the fall. We took cover crop and weed biomass samples just before disking in August of the first year of each cycle. We measured the carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) concentrations of the cover crops, as well as the main weed species. In 2018, the multi-species, brassica, and buckwheat cover crops were more competitive with weeds. The faba bean cover crop was not competitive with weeds and had the same amount of weeds (by weight) as the control treatment.

Weeds can be a troublesome part of organic systems. In this case, we wanted to see if they were redeeming themselves as part of the cover crop, or in the case of the control treatment, by taking the place of a seeded cover crop. Weeds are no different from any other plant: they take up soil nutrients and when they break down, they put carbon (including organic matter), nitrogen, and other nutrients back into the soil. As long as annual weeds don’t go to seed, maybe they are making a useful contribution to soil health, similar to a seeded cover crop.

Since weeds were incorporated into the soil in August along with the seeded cover, the less-competitive faba bean treatment and the weedy control actually returned more total carbon to the soil (average, 2220 kg/ha C) due to greater weed biomass (weed “yield”) than buckwheat, brassica or the multi-species mixture (850–1330 kg/ha C). Moreover, being a nitrogen-fixing legume, the faba bean cover crop (including its weeds) returned the most nitrogen to the soil at 99 kg/ha N. After the carrot harvest, our team rated carrots into Grade A (visually appealing with no deformities: ideal for restaurants, farmers’ markets, and organic grocery stores) and Grade B (downgraded due to wireworm damage, forking, scarring or misshaping: suitable for juicing only). Grade B carrots are worth about one third of Grade A carrots.

Vicia faba. Credit: Dr. Otto Wilhelm Thomé, Flora von Deutschland.

Despite the differences we measured in the C and N contributions of the cover crops and the weeds, it wasn’t enough to affect the carrot yields. In 2019, Grade A carrot yield was statistically the same with all the cover crop options. For soil health, the multi-species mixture had more microbial activity than either brassica or buckwheat cover crops (this is based on microbial biomass C – an index of microbial mass – and permanganate oxidizable C – the active or easily-decomposable C). However, a possible downside of the multi-species mix showed up when we looked at the following carrot crop. In 2019, treatments 4, 5 and 6 resulted in a greater proportion of the Grade B category, including forked carrots. Forking and misshaping are caused by many reasons, including soil compaction, weed interference, and insect or nematode feeding on root growing tips.

We also looked at the value of fall-seeded cover crops (Treatments 5 and 6) and their impact on wireworm and nematodes. These pests might actually be helped by cover crops; they appear to have greater survival during the winter season when living roots are present. But having winter cover may lead to better carrot yields, too: in 2020, total carrot yields (Grades A and B) were 10% higher after the fall-seeded cover crops when compared to the spring – seeded brassica cover crop, which led to the lowest yielding carrots. So far, we haven’t seen any effect of the different cover crop treatments on root lesion nematode populations, but the fall-season cover crops led to a small increase in wireworm damage on the carrots (this only showed up in 2019). More soil analyses and the results from the 2021-22 season are still to come. The additional information will help us tease out the pros and cons of multi-species vs single-species cover crops for irrigated organic carrots.

To learn more about OSC3 Activity 8, please visit

dal.ca/oacc/osciii

The Organic Science Cluster 3 is led by the Organic Federation of Canada in collaboration with the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada at Dalhousie University, and is supported by the AgriScience Program under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Canadian Agricultural Partnership (an investment by federal, provincial and territorial governments) and over 70 partners from the agricultural community.

Feature image:  Left to right: Charles Geddes (Weed Ecology & Cropping Systems, AAFC-Lethbridge); Howard Leffers (farmer-collaborator, Coaldale, AB); and James Hawkins (visiting Nuffield scholar, Neuarpurr, Victoria, Australia) in the 15-species cover crop, August 7, 2018. Credit: Frank Larney.

You might be interested in

Footnotes from the Field: Cause and Effect

in 2022/Climate Change/Footnotes from the Field/Summer 2022

The Relationship Between Religions, Agriculture, and Civilizations

Marjorie Harris

“The way we see the world shapes the way we treat it. If a mountain is a deity, not a pile of ore…if a forest is a sacred grove, not timber; if other species are biological kin, not resources; or if the planet is our mother, not an opportunity… then we will treat each other with greater respect. Thus is the challenge, to look at the world from a different perspective.” – David Suzuki

David Suzuki has provided a provocative consideration about how we perceive the world and how that impacts our treatment of the world and each other. Recently, I had the opportunity to interview Brian Snyder, a recently retired executive director of Ohio State University’s Initiative for Food and AgriCultural Transformation (InFACT) program, to discuss similar ideas about how agriculture impacts the world and ourselves.

Brian has 40 years of experience managing programs having to do with agriculture and food systems, with a business degree from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a theological degree from Harvard. He is just the expert to expand an understanding on the cause and effect of our world perceptions and the results we are harvesting.

Brian has been observing agricultural systems and their underlying religious philosophies, and he has come to the startling conclusion that all religions emerged to explain and justify cultural systems that run contrary to natural systems, and seek to overcome natural systems. Religion is often a justification for things that are contrary to nature, rather than a set of principles to build one’s life upon—as we have been led to believe by consumerist belief systems embedded into the foundations of the world’s religious systems.

Reframing History

For the bulk of human history people have been hunter-gatherers subject to the cycles of nature, whether they be feast or famine. With the archeological discovery of the Gobekli Tepe, the entire understanding modern scholars had about the origin of agriculture in relationship to religion was flipped upside down. The Gobekli Tepe temple structures are located in the Cappadocia region of northern Turkey and have been dated to 15,000 years old. They are now identified as the world’s oldest and first temples. The Gobekli Tepe temple complex was built before the beginning of agriculture, as agriculture is thought to have been established about 10,000 years ago. No evidence of domestic grains or livestock are present at the Gobekli Tepe site, only wild animal bones.

Until Gobekli Tepe’s discovery, it was thought that religion had been developed in response to the rise of agriculture. That theory has now been challenged, with an alternative interpretation being that agriculture developed in response to a religious presence—the rise of agriculture is coincident with the rise of religion. As Brian explains, religions can function to justify the use of agriculture to grow human populations beyond the natural carrying capacity of the land. The intentional raising of crops through tillage in an organized way created an abundance of food, providing more than was needed for the population.

From a cultural standpoint, this was an inflection point: the abundance of food led people to take the false belief that they were in control; yet nature is still, and always will be, beyond human control with regard to climate and the geological and celestial movements that control the growing seasons.

Brian observes that there is some sort of inherent divine presence that looks after all these things in the world. As depicted in the Christian Garden of Eden creation story, humanity started in the garden where nature took care of itself and provided for the people. At the point where people started to grow gardens and livestock for themselves, they seized governance for themselves, from nature. This is recorded in Genesis as the Fall of Man—human beings taking control of this natural process, with the idea of growing the population beyond what the land could naturally support.

The Cain and Abel story is an explicit struggle between livestock and crops over famine, water quality, and food security. Humanity hasn’t moved beyond these basic struggles, which have existed since the beginning of agriculture. In other religions, reincarnation offers a way to survive current problems and come back, without ever questioning what there will be to come back to if there is extinction?

Losing Ourselves to “Feed the World”

Today’s agricultural rhetoric is that we have to feed the world. We must be ready to feed people who are not here yet, have not been born yet—under the industrial corporate agriculture system the population will continue to grow unabated. The result of this rhetoric will be a further reduction in ecosystem biodiversity and biodiversity of crop-types, through the direct corporate control and ownership over the genetic materials for seeds and livestock.

Here is the challenge for humanity. It is both spiritual and scientific. What was divine was biodiversity propagating itself and creating ecosystem abundance in response to the natural environments. The population has grown beyond the carrying capacity of the earth already and reduction of species has been dramatic in recent decades. These events are playing out in the final Fall of Man—in the Christian mythos, as humankind’s punishment the ground will produce only thistles and weeds.

The sixth extinction is on the horizon.

There is controversy around humanity’s immense control over the quantity of food varieties, which have been radically reduced in number. In Pre-Columbian times in Peru there were over 3,000 varieties of potatoes growing in unique ecosystems. The Indigenous peoples would have considered each variety of potato to be a completely different type of crop. Over the past 500 years, with selective breeding programs and the spread of the potato worldwide, the global food system now depends on less than 30 varieties. Reliance on just three varieties of potato helped to precipitate the great Irish potato famine of the mid 19th century. Our ever-increasing dependence on soybeans and corn with reduced genetic diversity places humankind on the brink of the most tragic circumstance—that is, a worldwide catastrophe.

The organic agriculture ideal is to take spent land and regenerate it, to create sustainable agriculture systems. This highlights one of the challenges we face, the challenge of changing how we see the world.

Food companies are designed to maximize resources and monetary returns, rather than the methods used to regenerate the land and diversity of species. Corporate interests funnel genetics into a reduced sphere of diversity. Industrial farming with artificial commercially-produced inputs is all about farming as a necessity to continue to expand the population. From the Brazilian Amazon rainforest to the northern Boreal forests of Canada, generally accepted farming methods are to cut and burn the forest for land, strip the soils of nutrients by cropping, and then moving on to cut and burn more forests for more crop land.

At this point, there is no meaningful pushback from end consumers and farmers. The vast majority of people do not feel a strong inclination to turn the system around. Humans continue to consume unabated without concern. The consumer rhetoric is for the population to grow.

Expanding Our Approach

Hunters and gatherers were adapted to what nature provides. What was the trigger that catapulted humans into religion and agriculture? Perhaps there were evolutionary stressors that led humans to think that they could move beyond dependence on natural systems.

Genesis speaks of the knowledge of Good and Evil, where human beings think that they understand how things work, and then turn things to around to what they think most benefits humans. Bending nature to produce more than it naturally would, and then worshipping the human capacity to overcome natural processes.

Once you have the ears to hear the reductionist approach, it echoes in every news cycle. People are concerned about financial inflation first, then climate change and food security as afterthoughts. A shift is required in the way we see the world and each other. The solution is both spiritual and scientific.

“Thus is the challenge, to look at the world from a different perspective.” – David Suzuki

Marjorie Harris, IOIA VO and concerned organophyte.

Feature image: Göbekli Tepe detail. Credit: (CC) Davide Mauro.

You might be interested in

Grazing the Way for Small Scale Meat

in 2021/Fall 2021/Grow Organic/Livestock/Marketing/Organic Community

By Ava Reeve

Drive down any rural road in this province and you’re sure to pass cattle on the range, a flock of sheep, or mobile pens for pastured poultry. Small-scale livestock production has a long tradition in BC, and has been reinvigorated in recent years with practices such as rotational grazing and regenerative agriculture that allow for significant meat production without industrial practices. Demand also seems to be growing for local and sustainable meats.

But are there really enough of these small producers to play a serious role in BC’s economy today? And how much potential does this industry have for the future?

Associations representing commercial livestock producers collect data on their own members – those producing over 300 hogs with BC Pork, for example. Commodity producers also enjoy the benefits of their association’s advocacy, and commerce support from marketing boards.

Meanwhile, producers selling directly to consumers, raising multiple livestock species, or simply operating at a smaller scale have lacked a collective voice in provincial conversations about agricultural policies. And little is known about the current scale and potential capacity of these producers.

Credit: Small Scale Meat Producers Association.

The Small-Scale Meat Producers Association (SSMPA) aims to address both of these issues. In spite of a diversity of livestock types and sizes of operations, the organization says that its members are united by operating without the supports of the existing commodity associations or marketing boards.

SSMPA was established by a group of farmers and ranchers in 2017, and its membership now includes representation from all livestock sectors. “The Small-Scale Meat Producers Association represents British Columbia farmers and ranchers who are raising meat outside of the conventional, industrial system,” reads the SSMPA website home page.

This might include a pork producer raising 200 hogs per year, and all poultry producers who sell direct to consumer. It can also include cow-calf operations that process a few cull cows for sale to friends and neighbours, even if they otherwise primarily sell at auction.

It has also succeeded in becoming recognized in consultations and conversations with the BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, such as in the development of changes to on-farm slaughter licensing that the province recently announced.

Julia Smith of Blue Sky Ranch near Merritt is the President of SSMPA. “We’re happy with the regulatory changes,” she says of the announcement. But, she notes, “There’s more work to be done to build a thriving small-scale meat industry.”

Including Smith, SSMPA’s founding members were selling their meat products directly to members of their communities, rather than through a marketing board or distributor, and feeding communities in the process. And their experience was that their industry was growing.

Suckling piglets. Credit: Small Scale Meat Producers Association.

Smith raises a rare heritage breed of hog as well as a small herd of cattle on pasture. Selling directly has helped her see better margins than many commercial producers, where processors and retailers realize the lion’s share of the profit.

The demand for her product has been enough to enable Smith to grow her operation, from raising just two pigs in her first year, to running a farrow-to-finish operation with fourteen sows and two boars just four years later. She has supplied meat and other farm products to hundreds of British Columbians and currently has a waitlist for both meat and breeding stock.

Smith says this experience is repeated across the province. “We know that a small-scale operation can contribute to food security and the local economy. What we don’t know is the cumulative potential of producers like this spread all over the province – or their specific barriers to reaching that potential.”

She says information like this hasn’t been available because the right questions weren’t being asked. This summer, SSMPA launched a comprehensive survey of meat producers. She says the resulting information will help the organization define its policies and priorities to support these producers moving forward.

The province seems to agree that the industry has promise; many of the new changes to the slaughter regulations had been advocated for by SSMPA for years. Smith believes the number of producers that could be affected by policies like this is in the thousands. And they should all be giving their two cents to SSMPA.

“Everyone who processes at a provincially-inspected abattoir or on-farm should be participating in this survey,” she says. “Tell us: What is your path to growth? What obstacles do you need to overcome in order to reach your goals?”

At Blue Sky Ranch, Smith’s own goal was to produce just under 300 hogs per year. But the operation met with processing roadblocks at 125 hogs.

“We’re not the only operation that isn’t reaching its full capacity,” says Smith. “SSMPA is using the survey to document this. We want to know what would happen if we could create the conditions for successful operations across the province. For example, how many abattoirs would need to be built before producers could book the slaughter dates they need, with enough reliability to scale their businesses?”

“We’re connecting the dots, but without data to prove our case we won’t get the resources and support to let our industry thrive.”

Smith emphasizes that this survey is an independent project. “SSMPA is a producer-led organization and our mandate is to look out for producers,” she says. “We’ve gone to great lengths to protect the anonymity of survey participants and we will not be sharing survey responses or any other raw data with government, or anyone else.”

For an added incentive SSMPA connected with BC-based fencing company FenceFast, which has offered a $25 discount to every current producer who participates. Smith says FenceFast recognized the potential. “Really, this is just an example of the ripples of impact that can come from growing a locally-based industry like this.”

She adds, “We might be surprised at the opportunities being squandered because of challenges that are within our capacity to address. Even producers might be taken aback. We hope that there will be findings in our report that invigorate and inspire producers with a vision of what could be possible. We have so many people who want to enter this industry. Imagine the impact if these producers will have a fair chance at success.”

The survey is open until September 10, 2021 and can be accessed at smallscalemeat.ca/survey or it can be completed over the phone by appointment at 250-999-0296. SSMPA can also be reached at info@smallscalemeat.ca.

SSMPA is conducting regional focus groups in mid-September to dig deeper into potential solutions to the problems identified through the survey. By early 2022 they will be releasing a report on their findings, and announce how they will ensure that their own programming is geared to meet the needs of its membership.

Producers – and all supporters of local and sustainable meat production – are invited to join SSMPA by signing up for a membership.

Ava Reeve is the Executive Director of the Small-Scale Meat Producers Association, where she gets to pursue her passion for the sustainable practices that result in a high quality of life for both livestock and people.

Featured image: Spray Creek Ranch Cattle. Credit: Small Scale Meat Producers Association.

You might be interested in

1 2
Go to Top