A while back, I posted Be the Expert and asked for your feedback on the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) argument for a basic standard of care in regards to soil and water conservation. To meet the basic standard of care, EWG argued that every farmer should be required to adopt a set of 4 mandatory conservation practices:
- grassed waterways
- filter strips along all water bodies
- controlled access of livestock to all water bodies
- no application of manure to frozen, snow-covered, or saturated ground
When I published that blog post, I promised at some future time, I would disclose what I considered my basic standard of care. Since then, I have thought long and hard about the concept of a basic standard of care, or mandatory practices, that all farmers should adopt. After much thinking, what I have come to realize is that mandatory practices are the opposite of precision conservation. Precision conservation is “applying conservation practices in the right place, at the right time, and at the right scale” (Cox 2005). On the other hand, mandatory practices, or EWG’s basic standard of care, is requiring the same practice, in every case, whether or not it is the best solution for soil and water conservation.
I suggest that the basic standard of care should be measured in outcomes, not in applied practices. By naming grassed waterways as a basic standard of care, EWG suggests all farmers should control ephemeral erosion with grassed waterways. Grassed waterways are a great practice with enormous potential to reduce ephemeral erosion. However, installing a grassed waterway is just one of many practices that can be used to control ephemeral erosion. While some farmers might opt for grassed waterways, other farmers might opt for water and sediment control basins, or possibly terraces. Depending on the situation, these substitute practices may be more effective and depending on the farmer, may be more acceptable.
We, in agriculture, can do better and must do better. If you are the type of person who needs a list to select from, this is a decent list. However, if you believe in selecting the best medicine to treat the ailment, then precision conservation is for you.
What do you think?
Are Sustainability Programs a Bait and Switch?
In my opinion, Tom, a basic standard of care (and its subsequent 4 practices) is like giving all obese people a regimen to lose weight by doing 4 things:
– run a mile
– do push-ups
– do sit-ups
– stop eating sugar
If you are obese and follow this “basic care”, you will undoubtedly lose weight, but may not achieve the level of health that you dreamed. I agree that precision farming will achieve a much better level of sustainability. It is ever-changing based on the farmers goals, land’s needs, and an ever changing environment.
Tom,
The basic premise to ask “What do I need to do to make this farm more
valuable in 5 years ? ” Start with good evaluation of soil profile (chemical, biological, mechanical), move soil loss to near zero, download yield maps beginning with 2014 (combines have had the technology for 20 years), prioritize continuous improvement projects over the 5 years, evaluate the 5 year plan and move onto the next 5 years. OM improvement is the goal.
I completely agree that one size doe not fit all and am agnostic about the EWG efforts in general. However, three of the practices mentioned above are pretty effective and the last two are becoming standard in the northeast: (1) filter strips along all water bodies, (2) controlled access of livestock to all water bodies, and (3) no application of manure to frozen, snow-covered, or saturated ground. These three have been shown to help keep N and P from surface waters. (3) simply makes sense in terms of getting the max N and P value from manure and hence ability to reduce the use of purchased fertilizers.