Jim Gerrish Grazing Workshop

Below are a few highlights from a recent grazing workshop I attended co-sponsored by the Kansas Rural Center featuring Jim Gerrish. Gerrish has been influential in revitalizing interest in rotational grazing, and is a well known instructor and practitioner on Management Intensive Grazing (MiG). Much of his thoughts on rotational grazing were not new to me, but I appreciated hearing him speak and thought he had some good perspectives on grazing agriculture.

Themes from the day:

1. Our goal as grazers is to maximize the grass “solar panel”
2. Managing cost rather than increased production will have a bigger impact on profit
3. Diversity leads to greater stability
4. Sustainability for ranching/farming means moving away from reliance on iron (equipment) and oil (fuel and fertilizer). We have zero control over the price of equipment and fuel, with costs likely to continue rising

MiG (Management Intensive Grazing) thought and concepts:

1. Poor rotational grazing can be worse than continuous grazing
2. Flexible approach to rotational grazing to deal with numerous variables
3. Manage forages to meet changing animal nutrient needs
4. Balance forage supply
5. Available forage allocated based on animal requirements

On the need to reduce winter hay feeding and maximize grazing:

· The main determinate of profitability is not herd size, but annual cow cost (feed costs, cow depreciation, and labor).
· Winter feeding costs are the single biggest expense for cow-calf operators.
· The cost of hay production is often higher than the cost of buying hay. Rarely is the true cost of hay production as low as $60/ton, and usually closer to $100/ton.
· The availability of hay and hay making equipment has determined the length of winter feeding, not forage availability. The average length of winter hay feeding is 130 days in Minnesota, Missouri, and Mississippi, proving it’s not length of grazing season, but availability of hay that determines winter feeding.

The Bottom Lines of Farming

The “bottom line” refers to the net income of a business or, more broadly, the profitability of a business. I once heard an individual make the claim that farming has numerous bottom lines, with profitability being only one. In this case, a bottom line is a factor or value that we consider in our farming enterprise.

Most professions probably have more bottom lines than simply profitability ranging from personal satisfaction, to ambition, to social responsibility. However, I would argue that farming has and should have more bottom lines than most professions. Farming should always keep profitability as an important bottom line, but most farmers would admit that you have to be in agriculture for more than just the money.

Lifestyle is often stated as a reason for farming. Raising a family in a rural environment and living close to the land is a noble bottom line. Being one’s own boss is another reason stated for farming. However, I would question whether modern farmers who have such enormous debt burdens to manage are truly independent. Cultural and family responsibility can be a bottom line that brings individuals back to the farm. I know this has come into play for me as I feel the responsibility to return to the home place as a 4th generation farmer on the same land. I am excited about the prospect, but have to admit there are easier climates and cultures for starting a grazing dairy than in the middle of Kansas.

I tend to diverge somewhat from some of the conventional bottom lines that I perceive many farmers adhering to. First, some bottom lines that I perceive, but do not agree with:

· Get big or get out: This bottom line is easily understood from the perspective that equipment continues to get bigger and more expensive and commodity prices do not adjust for inflation. Thus, as expenses continue to rise, profit margins become narrower requiring more production to theoretical maintain a similar income. Unfortunately, this also means that in a money losing year, big farms lose lots of money. More theoretically, I would argue that our SUV, Big Mac culture is obsessed with size. From a rural community perspective, get big or get out is a death sentence requiring ever fewer farmers and local business. What if we would focus on reducing costs and increasing profitability on a per acre basis rather than on a whole farm basis? What if we would hold quality of life and the environment on equal footing as the profitability bottom line? Would the “get big” mentality pass all three of these bottom lines?

· New technology is always good: I think many conventional farmers are more in love with their new tractors and GPS devices than they are with the land that grows their crops. Farmers have the very unique and important responsibility of being stewards of the land. I may be old fashioned, but I believe technology tends to separate us from being able to listen to the land. With our ever larger tractors, on-board computers, and chemicals, we become conquerors rather than stewards of the land. There is no possible way to see how many earthworms there are in the soil (which is a basic indicator of the health of our soil) from atop our huge machines that require us to move across huge tracts of land. Technology allows us to ignore biological processes and efficiencies within nature. Of course, my favorite example is grazing versus putting up hay. Putting up hay tends to maximize yield, but does not maximize forage quality and robs the land of nutrients. Also, with even the most optimistic numbers, hay production rarely breaks even when actual equipment costs, labor costs, fuel costs, and fertilizers costs are taken into account. In most regions of the United States, cattle can graze at least 10 months out of the year with good management, recycle the vast majority of all the nutrients removed through grazing, and harvest their food for free. I will conclude my technology rant, by admitting that new technology can have its rightful place on a farm as long as the environmental, quality of life and profitability bottom lines are valued above technology.

Now, here are a couple of bottom lines I hope to adhere to as a farmer:

· Environment: Valuing the health of the land and animals, I believe, is one of the primary responsibilities of farmers. Maintaining the health of the land will ensure the sustainability of farming generations to come. I believe, only the best farmers will be good stewards of their natural resources, which can be measured through the health of their soils, the quality of the water the passes through the land they farm, the health of their livestock, and hopefully, eventually we can measure how farming practices contribute to the quality of the air.

· Quality of Life: Valuing how the farming enterprise impacts the quality of life of farm families would seem to be important, but is all too often overlooked in the quest for profitability and increased production. I believe asking how quality of life will be impacted should be a leading question when making any large decisions about the farm.

Many more bottom lines could and should be discussed. This is only a start to a discussion critiquing current bottom lines and establishing which bottom lines I hope to value as a farmer.

Oil Addiction

Call me a pessimist or apocalyptic, but our society has a serious problem on our hands. We are addicted to oil, or more generally, fossil fuels. Most of us could not function normally for more than a couple seconds without fossil fuels that power our computers and lights, provide the energy and material to manufacture everything we own and use, and provide us with the fuel to transport us. Over the past 250 years humans have replaced natural or current sources of energy with fossil fuels (stored carbon) for all our basic functions. This discovery of fossil fuels has fueled huge advances in human comfort, health, industry, transportation, and food production.

These advances would not be a problem if our ever increasing dependency/addiction to fossil fuels would not have us pointed in a rapidly approaching collision course. Actually, we are approaching a dual collision with dwindling reserves and with human caused environmental changes. The previously perceived limitless reserves of carbon under our feet from millions of years of decomposing organisms is now proving not as limitless in the face of our voracious appetite for energy. New studies now predict that we have already used up all of the most easily accessible and largest oil reserves. This point is called peak oil when the maximum rate of oil extraction has been reached. Oil will increasingly become more difficult and expensive to extract and will slowly diminish, while human demand for oil continues to exponentially increase. As Wes Jackson states, our use of oil is increasing faster and faster. Half of all oil ever used has been burned since 1980. One quarter of oil ever used has been burned since 1994. We are at a tipping point with oil (maybe not yet with coal) where consumption is going to start out pacing production.

With all these millions of years of stored carbon being released into the atmosphere in a matter of decades, it is completely rational to expect a major climatic change similar to other points in earth’s history when the atmospheric conditions were dramatically altered (i.e. – volcanic eruptions and meteorite collisions that led to ice ages and mass extinctions). We don’t know the exact point at which we will start seeing dramatic climatic changes, or what these changes actually will be, but it is quite clear that we will and are beginning to see the anthropogenic induced changes that may be far more costly to our species than simply running out of oil. Though I am not a climatologist, I think scientists are increasingly becoming aware that it won’t be as simple as global warming. Once the polar ice caps have disappeared, which will disrupt the oceans currents, weather conditions will be significantly altered. In summary, we have not a clue what we may be ultimately have put in motion since no other organism has ever so dramatically altered the natural equilibrium of our planet. In a sense, with the discovery of fossil fuels, humans have been living beyond the natural capacity of earth’s resources. Now, we are due for a correction whether we are prepared or not.

Like most addictions, it is very hard to admit we have a problem and even harder to change. I am dumfounded by the flat out denial by so many individuals I cross paths with. And, then with those who accept the inevitability of climate change, very few individuals are actively exploring how to change their lifestyles. Even amongst those of us who proclaim to be exploring alternatives to our fossil fuel addictions, there is not a single individual who I know that can claim to have fully been weaned off of fossil fuel reliance.

Where does that leave me on my quest to find sustainable farming systems that are not reliant on fossil fuels? What saddens me is that we have thousands of years of experiences with both successful and failed models of sustainable agriculture systems that are not reliant on fossil fuels, which we have blindly chosen to ignore over the last 75 years. With increased scientific understanding of soil and plant biology and chemistry, I have no doubt that we can find efficient systems that work with nature to feed the world. Instead, with our current farming practices, we have chosen to ignore (actually fight against) natural systems with the aid of fossil fuels. We now view the soil as a dead medium (which we have to keep dead) to grow our nutritional void crops. We use large machinery powered by oil to spray chemicals (derived from fossil fuels) that kill all undesirable (and most desirable) organisms to clear the way for planting the genetically modified seeds which are developed and patented by the chemical companies. Instead of using biologic sources to boost soil fertility and control pests, we now dump on fossil fuel-derived fertilizers (nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium). Our crops are harvested, transported and processed all at the expense of huge quantities of fossil fuels. At the end of the production line, it is very unclear whether we are farming crops or oil. This system has made the farmer slave to the chemical and oil companies, and unable to be an independent steward of the land.

Then we move on to livestock agriculture which the vast majority of our corn produced in the U.S. ends up feeding. Ruminants (cattle, sheep and goats) where brilliantly designed to harvest and utilize roughage (grass and forbs) as their primary nutritional source. Grasslands and ruminants co-evolved together and are mutually dependent on each other. For example, the hooves of ruminants are designed to dig grass seeds into the ground encouraging germination. The microbes in the stomach of ruminants have specifically evolved to digest roughage and cannot survive when diets are altered to starch (grain)-based diets. However, with the advent of fossil fuel-based industrial agriculture and the ability to produce huge quantities of cheap grain, it was deemed more efficient to pen livestock up, plow up the pastures for crops, and switch ruminant diets from forage-based to corn-based. Yes, animals get fat faster and produce more milk by shoving huge quantities of cheap calories down their throats. But, we enact violence against the natural system, starving those brilliant ruminal microbes that turn otherwise indigestible lignin into fuel for the animal, destroying that beautifully co-evolved grassland-grazer ecosystem, and ignoring the free energy of having the four-legged beast harvest her own meal from a previous perfectly balanced ecosystem that needs no chemical fertilizer or pesticide.

I don’t know if farming practices based on biologics and current energy can feed 10 million people, but I do know that the fossil fuel-based agriculture industry that is enacting fairly directs acts of violence against our environment is not going to continue feeding us for long. While fossil fuel-based agriculture has only been around for about 75 years, agriculture has fed humans for millennia. Thus, we have a long history to build on and new sciences to apply to learn to farm with nature rather than against nature.

Livestock Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cattle have been receiving increased attention recently. Cattle contribute to 14% of all GHG emissions and 17% of all methane emissions. Methane is a potent GHG 25 times more potent than CO2. Industrial agriculture proposes that increasing efficiency (faster rates of gain or more milk production with the use of higher energy diets, growth hormones, and other additives) is the solution for reducing GHG emissions for livestock production. A recent Cornell study funded by Monsanto (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/06/27/0802446105.full.pdf) concluded that conventional dairies that use rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) reduced the global warming potential of the dairy industry compared to conventional dairies that do not use rBGH and organic dairies. Numerous individuals have cited this study as flawed and biased, largely due to the claimed increases in milk production from the adoption of rBGH that have never been realized from the industry as a whole. U.S. milk production never significantly spiked during the years of reported widespread use of rBGH by dairy farmers.

Rather than looking towards new technologies to solve livestock GHG emissions, I believe the solution may lie in grazing grasslands. I would like to see a study comparing the net GHG emissions of a well managed rotationally grazed dairy or beef herd compared to a confinement dairy (with or without rBGH) or beef feedlot. I would hypothesis that with the carbon sink of a perennial pasture and the lower use of fossil fuels in production systems, grazing dairy and beef cattle (despite higher methane emissions due to lower milk production/gains per animal) would have net GHG emissions (CO2-C equivalent) significantly lower than confinement operations (with or without rBGH). There are very few studies I have found researching the GHG exchanges for grazed grasslands. Soussana et al. (Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 121 (2007) 121–134) studied 9 sites in Europe and concluded that even with accounting for the methane emissions of grazing ruminants, grasslands are still CO2-C equivalent sink.

The scientific community needs researched studies that will address best possible agricultural strategies for improving air quality and reducing contributions to global climate change. I have a bias towards grazing systems, believing not only in the numerous environmental benefits of well managed grazing systems, but also the possibility of an economically viable alternative to adopting the newest technologies of industrial agriculture. Unfortunately, grazing natural grasslands does not have the backing of industry dollars, reducing the potential of innovative research.

Quest for Sustainability

For the past decade, I have been on a quest to discover viable sustainable alternatives for the way we feed ourselves. I believe modern cultures' ever increasing dependency on a fossil fuel-based economy has led to an unsustainable and environmentally degrading system of living.

My interest in sustainable agriculture was first peaked as I became interested in helping disadvantaged rural communities overseas. In my mind, the best way to alleviate poverty and hunger was to build food security by encouraging sustainable farming practices.

Growing up on a relatively conventional family dairy and crop farm in Kansas, I did not come to question the sustainability of North American agriculture until years after my interest in sustainable agriculture overseas. My parents encouraged my continued education, creative thinking, and global travel. This led me to explore environmentally and economically sustainable farming practices in an international context, which eventually led me to question the farming systems I grew up knowing. So, over the past number of years, I have been exploring alternative farming systems that, in my opinion, best point agriculture in a more environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable direction.