Farming Techniques Do Not Belong To One Farming System

The subtitle to this blog is "Synergistic Farming: Using the best practices from all farming systems".

For folks who want to put our family farm "in a box", we are a conventional farm.

For folks who are of broader minds and philosophies, or can conceptualize that conventional does not equate to "bad", then we are a "synergistic" farm.

If you have followed me for any length of time, you know I talk a lot about farming systems, sustainability, conservation, and biotechnology. The practices that we use are a melding of various techniques often credited to one type of farming system or another. Rather than holding ourselves to a certain set of "rules" or limiting the tools we are able to use, we choose to practice and maximize the synergies from taking the best of organic, conventional and biotechnology in order to make our family farm as sustainable as possible.

First, let's look at what I mean by farming systems:

The chart provides a brief illustration about the "main" concept behind each farming system. There is certainly broad overlap between  these main "concepts" within each of the 3 farming systems. All 3 systems can use precision agriculture, the latest technology to reduce inputs and be more prescriptive toward each crop. All 3 systems can use modern plant breeding to enhance desired traits in plants however "genetic engineering" or "GMO" are restricted from use in organic agriculture. Conventional and organic plant breeding takes place either by traditional crossing, hybridization, or radiation or chemical mutagenesis. All 3 systems can use techniques that address and enhance soil health.

Typically what you hear in the media is that one system has cornered the market on "soil health" or another system has cornered the market on "precision agriculture".

Today, family farms use the synergies that each farming systems offers to maximize sustainability.

Today, those "farming system" lines are far more blurred.

Today, there is significant cross over between the 3 farming systems. This is what I mean by "synergistic" farming, a melding of the best each system has to offer. The chart about shows what our family farm practices. When we had about 100 acres certified organic, we did not change the way we farmed because we have been using cover crops, green manures, crop rotation, conservation tillage, and IPM for decades. To us, these are just standard operating procedures, they aren't "organic" practices. We followed Rodale's no-till organic recommendations by rolling our cover crops with a buffalo chopper and then no till seeded corn into the residue. It was a mess. The corn yielded 47 bushels per acre as compared to 110 bushels per acre in our conventional corn that same year, both dry land or unirrigated. Other years we would rotary hoe and cultivate numerous times to control for weeds but soil disturbance is soil disturbance and not something we like to do here in our Chesapeake Bay watershed. Disturbing top soil encourages erosion. Wind and rain take sediment away from disturbed top soil. Phosphorus is adsorbed to sediment so when sediment moves, so does phosphorus. The extensive tillage and yield loss in our organic field led us to choose to be synergistic rather than purely organic for the sake of being certified. For us, it was the most sustainable choice we could make.

By doing what's best for our fields, we are focused on soil health, enhancing the soil profile without excessive tillage, practicing more conservation not less, choosing the safest most effective pest control as possible whether its "natural" or "synthetic". Just because a product is organic or natural, does not make it nontoxic. Sometimes, a synthetic product is safer than an OMRI approved product. Again, that's determining for our family farm, the synergies that work in our environment and in our soils.

There is no "one" system that is "best", There is no "one" way of doing things that should be done carte blanche by every farmer, everywhere. There is no "cookie cutter" system that should be applied to every farm. What we farmers should be doing is maximizing the synergies of all best management practices that meld together the best for our soils while preserving our inputs and natural resources.

Family farms continue to move along the sustainability continuum and are fundamentally changing "farming systems" so that the synergies of each best management practices mean we do not fit into a cookie cutter mold of a certain "type" of farm.

Dietary Guidelines & Sustainability: 25 Years Late To The Party

As both an RD and a farmer, I've been following the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee's (DGAC) work with great interest. Since Thursday's release of the committee's recommendations for the 2015 Dietary Guidelines, there has been much chatter on social media about what's "in" (cholesterol & caffeine) and what's "out"(saturated fats, added salt & sugar). But my real interest is in their inclusion of "sustainable diet" in their recommendations, so I downloaded Chapter 5 hoping for "something new" to the discussion of food production as it interplays with nutrition and health. I was most disappointed. I'm really taking off my RD hat and looking at this chapter from a farmer's perspective.

I think the dietary guidelines advisory committee is 25 years late to the party.....

Congress addressed sustainability in the food and farming system as far back as the 1990 Farm Bill. Under the law of the 1990 Farm Bill, the term sustainable agriculture means

"an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having site specific application that will, over the long term:

• satisfy human food and fiber needs.
• enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends.
• make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls.
• sustain the economic viability of farm operations
• enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole."

From what I read, the DGAC did not acknowledge the 25 year old Congressional definition anywhere in the chapter on Food Sustainability and Safety. Instead they offered a modified Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) definition:

"Sustainable diets: Sustainable diets are a pattern of eating that promotes health and well-being and provides food security for the present population while sustaining human and natural resources for future generations.

Food Security: Food security exists when all people now, and in the future, have access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life."

The document continued by offering the following graphic:

Source: Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Chapter 5, Food Sustainability and Safety

This graphic is interesting when compared to the 1990 Farm Bill definition because it basically mirrors what was implemented 25 years ago. What the DGAC is saying is we now need to move toward sustainability in  these new dietary guidelines.

What the DGAC is missing is that US farmers have already been moving along the sustainability continuum. We got the message 25 years ago and have been doing our due diligence to ensure that our food and farming system is both resilient and sustainable. 

So over the last 25 years, what has happened in our food and farming system to improve sustainability? According to the USDA annual Agriculture Resource Management Survey (ARMS): 

• Use of commercial fertilizers and pesticides has been declining in recent years, due to improvements in technology. 
• Adoption of "best management practices" (BMPs) in fertilizer use (rate, timing and application method to conserve the resource and maximize plant uptake) has increased. A full 35% of all cropland has met ALL 3 nutrient BMPs, and a significant portion of remaining cropland has some BMP practice implemented.
• US Farmers have increase resource efficiency, producing more food on less land with fewer inputs.
• There are 96 million acres of cropland planted in no-till farming systems and that percentage has been increasing over time at a rate of 1% per year (Howard G. Buffet Foundation).
• According to the Conservation Tillage Information Center, 109 million acres of the 239 million acres of US cropland practice conservation agriculture. 
• As a result of conservation tillage, soil health has improved. Erosion has declined, microbial life has increased, and we are on track to making continuous quality improvements as a whole. 

Source: The Food & Agriculture Organization

These statistics were confirmed by the metrics analyzed by the Field to Market report which looks at national sustainability trends in US agriculture (also not referenced by the DGAC). Which perhaps behooves the question: were the experts were not aware that the 1990 Farm Bill defined sustainable agriculture, and why did they not use the plethora of data and statistics on sustainability practices from the agency charged with implementing the Dietary Guidelines (USDA),

But you ask, what about livestock? This is the crux of what the DGAC focused on in their call for American's to lower their meat consumption. That a meat-based diet consumes more resources than a plant based diet. 

Source: Animal Agriculture Alliance

There has been great improvement in the resources animal agriculture once used compared to today's production. Farmers and ranchers are producing more food with less resources than in decades past. While the DGAC fingers agriculture, specifically livestock, as contributing "up to 30% of human-generated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the data shows otherwise: 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service

According to the EPA "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2012",  agriculture represents 10% of the GHG contribution. Where did the DGAC get 30%? Obviously not from the EPA. 

So am I saying that agriculture isn't a factor in the loss of resources? No, we're part of the problem, as is all human activity. We are also part of the solution.

Am I saying that agriculture has done its part? No, we have more to do. Science and research will direct the way for us to continue along the sustainability continuum. 

Am I saying that the DGAC should not consider sustainability in the dietary guidelines? I think that if this section of the recommendations remains in the final guidelines, it will need to be validated by experts in the field of agriculture and sustainability.

So I applaud the DGAC for the work they have done. It was no doubt a huge undertaking. As an RD and a mom, I appreciate the emphasis on eating more fruits and vegetables, increasing whole grains, things that we have known and continue to strive for. But I am disappointed in their lack of recognition of how far agriculture has come in the last 25 years moving our food and farming system greatly along the sustainability continuum. Sustainability is part of our daily lives on our family farms. As I blogged about last summer, Stewardship is our middle name. The DGAC came a little late to the party.

Sustainable Ag: We're Certified Stewards!

Sustainability isn't a hot topic on our family farm, it is a way of life. Recently, our way of life was certified by Maryland inspectors as being a "Certified Agricultural Conservation Steward" under the Farm Stewardship Certification and Assessment Program. (FSCAP). The program is sponsored by the Maryland Association of Soil Conservation Districts, and farmers must meet the ACSCS standards in order to gain the status of "Certified Steward".

Under the FSCAP program, we voluntarily submit to inspections of both recordkeeping and have all our fields inspected to ensure that not only have we documented the conservation we have put on the ground, but that we maintain and preserve those practices to ensure that excess nutrients and sediment do not leave our farm.

Going through our mandatory nutrient management plan, the inspectors look for soil, manure, and plant tissue analysis and that what we apply to our plants and soils is what is required by the crop. They look at our approved soil conservation and water quality plan to make sure that all the conservation recommendations were implemented as directed. They make sure our fertilizer receipts match our application records. They make sure we correctly complete and submit to the Maryland Dept of Agriculture the mandatory Annual Implementation Report (AIR) for all fertilizer use.

Once the records pass inspection, they walk the fields, inspecting the conservation on the ground. These are practices that provide natural resource protection such as buffers around bodies of water seen below.

We're required to have a 30 foot buffer but ours is more like 1000 feet from this stream. On the right, you see trees that were planted as part of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). This program is a voluntary land retirement program that removes production agriculture from sensitive land such as this one adjacent to the stream. The practice of setting aside land that is sensitive is a very sustainable approach that actually benefits the larger downstream community more directly than it benefits us. In total, we have taken 120 acres of land out of agricultural production over the last 15 years, in addition to the implementation of many other active conservation practices.

Cover crops is also another conservation practice we put into place on as many acres as we can every fall. These crops take up any remaining nutrients in the soil left over from the crop we just harvested, and then slowly release those nutrients in the spring as the crop decomposes in the field acting as a sort of green manure. This practice adds to the sustainability of our soils by enhancing the qualities, improving the nutrients and organic matter and overall soil health which is critical to the sustainability of the farm for future generations.

Precision ag is another sustainable practice that we have employed on our family farm. Using the newest technology allows us to use less fertilizer by reading the chlorophyll content of the plant and the computerized technology in the tractor adjusting the rate of the fertilizer based on the specific crop. This saves us both economic resources and provides an environmental benefit to the larger watershed community around us.

Conservation tillage is a big part of our sustainable agricultural practices. We use both no-till and conservation tillage. Above you see Hans getting ready to no-till which means he is seeding a new crop directly into the residue of the previous crop (note the brown corn stalks on top of the soil). No till means we do not plow and therefore do not turn over the soil, exposing it to erosion, sediment and phosphorus loss. Our top soil and its health is our livelihood. We do all that we can to preserve and protect it.

All human activity has an impact on the environment, agriculture included. Sustainable agriculture is about being responsible to preserve and protect the resources that we have that provide food and fiber for our neighbors, while protecting the soil, water and environment for the now and the future. There is nothing at greater stake than the future sustainability of family farms like mine. Certification in agricultural conservation is striving for the best for our land, the best for our surrounding and downstream communities, and most importantly, the best stewardship for the next generation to operate this family farm.

Visit our conservation stewardship page at:  FSCAP Schmidt Farms Inc.

Farming - A lesson in community and civics.

I'm so excited to have been asked to guest blog for the America's Farmers blog about strengthening rural communities, sustainability and the role of family farms. Its near and dear to my heart because as I say in the blog, we pour ourselves into our local community.

The link below will lead you to the blog which is called:

Farming - A lesson in community and civics. 

And I LOVE the info-graphic that was created highlighting some of the major 

benefits family farms bring to their local communities!

Thanks America's Farmers for recognizing the many benefits farms provide

to rural America!

Investing in Sustainability

As a result of the NY Times article and my response in my last blog Stay Calm and Farm On, I received several comments via facebook, email, or twitter about issues of sustainability on our farm. One thread of many comments was the definition of sustainability and how can a modern, conventional farm, call ourselves sustainable.  Here was one of the comments:

"If the farming focus is not on the health of the soil as foundation (ie. biodynamic or organic farming) then it's about destructive attempts at manipulating nature for profit ("intellectual property"). This at the expense of our environment as a whole. "

For 3 generations now, we have invested in sustainability. Our main focus has always been our soils. We have been planting cover crops, green manures, and no-till farming since the 1960's. We have always practiced Integrated Pest Management (IPM) because it's simply more cost-effective and good stewardship. The perception is that these are practices used only in organic agriculture. To us, they are simply the way we operate our farm. Always have, always will.

My father-in-law on an over the row, no-till Hiboy, 1964. High tech for its day.

Today, we continue to invest heavily in equipment and technology to help us not only be more efficient but also to continue to improve our soils, use less resources, lower our CO2 emissions, and improve our water quality. Sustainability does not meet a cookie-cutter, one-size fits all model, or apply to only one type of farming system or practice.  Soil types, climate, topography, equipment, resources, access to capital and amount of debt carried by a family farm are all factors that contribute to its sustainability.

So today, we were top-dressing winter wheat using our GreenSeeker technology and it ties in nicely with my comments about sustainability on our farm.

My husband, Hans driving the sprayer outfitted with GreenSeeker technology. He is applying  fertilizer which is called "top-dressing" the winter wheat crop.

How do we know it requires fertilizer?

This amazing piece of technology called the "GreenSeeker" tells us!

On the spray booms are optical sensors that detect the level of chlorophyll in the plants. Chlorophyll is the molecule that absorbs sunlight and synthesizes carbohydrates for energy for plant growth. We know this as photosynthesis, a process all plants are dependent upon for health.

This monitor inside the cab shows the driver the Normalized Difference Vegetative Index "NDVI". 

The color variation of chlorophyll is detected by the optical sensors and reflected on the monitor by a color range from brown to green. Green means there is more chlorophyll, yellow is in the middle, and brown is the least amount. The GreenSeeker applies a variable rate of fertilizer specific to the area that the optical sensor detected.

So you can see here, the spray boom with the optical sensors and the variation in the rate of the nozzles applying fertilizer heavier in some areas and less in others. Not all  nozzles run at the same rate and will turn off all together if no fertilizer is needed.

By practicing precision agriculture, we have both an environmental and an economic impact. The variable rate fertilizer application allows us to apply only what the plant needs based on its chlorophyll content. In some areas, that meant a savings of over 15 pounds of nitrogen per acre. The plant utilizes this application more efficiently resulting in less fertilizer remaining in the soil which ultimately can  improve water quality. 

GreenSeeker is just one piece of equipment that our family farm invested in to add more tools to our toolbox of sustainable farming practices. We have heavily invested in conservation equipment and practices on our farm as our philosophy is to treat our soil for what it is, our livelihood and the future for our children. We have taken the best of all farming system practices and combined them with some of the latest modern technology to create a sustainable family farm that we are proud to call home.

As we go through the growing season this year, I hope to highlight some of the other approaches we use to be environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable on our modern family farm. 

Finding Our CommonGround

I just returned from a 3 day trip to New York City volunteering for an organization called CommonGround, (www.findourcommonground.com) a group of farm women whose mission it is to tell folks about what we do (and don’t do) on our farms. Our goal is to connect the face of America’s farmers with the food you all buy from the grocery store. There is a misperception that the food you find in the grocery store is grown by “corporate” farms. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Here is a picture of our “corporation”:

Do you know that 98% of all the farms in the US are family owned & operated?  The bulk of the food you buy at the grocery store, unless it was imported, was grown by an American farm family.

So back to my trip to New York City. Each day was filled radio interviews and deskside meetings with magazine editors, all to promote agriculture and family farms. We got some really interesting questions but three in particular standout to me: During one radio interview, the radio personality asked “So are you the anti-organic agriculture organization?” Oh my goodness no! While I’ve blogged about the similarities between organic agriculture and the way we farm, I believe there is a market for both agricultural systems. My point however, is that studies have not shown that organic farming produces safer or more nutritious foods. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a review of 50 years worth of data which though limited, did not show a significant difference in nutrient value between organic and conventional foods. The nutrient content of food is derived from the nutrient value and quality of the soil. Sustainability is not based on a cookie-cutter system, nor does one farming system “lay claim” to certain practices as being “theirs”. We de-certified our organic ground specifically because it was not sustainable for our operation. I can’t stress enough – you cannot have a cookie-cutter system that applies across all farms. We do not believe in plowing and the susceptibility to erosion that plowing creates. Soil is our farm’s greatest asset. We need to keep it and build it, not expose it and erode it. For that reason, we no longer farm organically. We do use both organic and synthetic chemicals to control for pests and diseases. To us, that is the measure of sustainability, not whether something is organic or conventional. Its a balance of economics and environment, not an either-or situation.

The other episode that surprised me was when I was at our booth at the Editor’s Showcase, which is a tradeshow for editors. A woman approached our booth and said that she no longer ate meat since she watched a video of inhumane treatment of livestock. I responded by asking “You do know that does not represent the majority of family farmers and is not the “norm” for livestock farmers, right?” She said “No, really?” She honestly appeared to be utterly convinced by a single video that the bad apples in farming were representative of all farmers. I am not going to sit here and tell you that all farmers are doing the right thing, just like not all doctors, lawyers, police, or teachers are doing the right thing. But a few bad apples do not represent the entire profession. It was a message that repeated itself several times. Honestly, these were sincere, well-educated people who seemed to have been totally swayed into believing that what they saw on a video was the standard treatment of farm animals. How sad that folks are so disconnected from the farm that they will believe misinformation about an entire profession.

I feel fortunate to have been asked to attend this outreach effort on behalf of CommonGround. If what I said helped one person understand where their food comes from and the faces behind American farmers, then I will have accomplished a great deal.

Another interesting question that came up frequently – who funds you? CommonGround is funded by checkoff dollars from soybean and corn farmers. What this means is that when a farmer sells corn or soybeans, a portion of the sale price of each bushel goes into a fund that pays for research, marketing programs and promotion of those commodities. So American farmers are funding their own progress and programs. A really recognizable use of checkoff dollars is the “Got Milk” mustache campaign, which is a dairy funded checkoff program. It is the soybean and corn farmer checkoff dollars that support the programs of CommonGround, but the women in the organization are all volunteers. CommonGround is funded by farmers, it is our message that we are communicating, and no one else's message.

To find more information about your food and who grows it, I encourage you to visit CommonGround’s website www.findourcommonground.com and watch some of the videos made by other farm women who are also volunteering their time to educate folks about food and farming. It is a great resource to learn about your food.