Archive for the ‘farming and climate change’ Category

11 Aug

Report on climate change resilience for service providers, Part 2: Best Management Practices Go Hand-in-Hand with Climate Change Adaptation

Posted by Center for Sustainable Ag. in diversified farms, farming and climate change, organic, produce growing, sustainable agriculture.

Picture of farmer looking at land that has been underwater.

Looking at land that has been underwater.

Our interview continues with Rachel Schattman of the Agroecology and Rural Livelihoods Group about the Vermont Agricultural Resilience to Climate Change Initiative.  This post was first published on the Farming & Climate Change Adaptation blog on July 22, 2015.  Also see Part 1 here.

Center for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA): Were there any Best Management Practices (BMPs) which were adopted for resilience reasons that didn’t fit into the strategic categories you identified: diversification, water management in the context of soil health, and innovative production?

Rachel: The way we selected the BMPs to highlight was that we looked at what the farmers were practicing and the degree to which these farmers felt that the BMPs protected them from the effects of climate change.  We definitely could have added more BMPs; rotational grazing is a great example of a strategic practice that can improve soil health and therefore water management on the farm.  Manure injection and riparian buffers qualify as BMPs that have great potential to protect farms from some effects of climate change.

We chose the practices  as examples of what farmers in Vermont are doing now, not an inventory.  There were a couple of BMPs that stood out as not fitting into one category, but which spanned many: monitoring of farm ecosystems (aka “agroecosystems”), was highlighted as a key approach for increasing resilience. In brief, if we don’t really know what’s going on in farm systems, it’s hard to make the best decisions about how to adjust farming practices. Having monitoring systems that deliver consistently reliable and useful information is critical for improving sustainability.

How to build better relationships between university-based researchers, farmers, municipalities and other public institutions so that the flow of data is used effectively is equally as important as deciding what we need to monitor.

CSA: On occasion, we have heard from farmers that they are optimistic about the effects of climate change, such as a longer growing season. Did you speak to any farmers who felt this way?

Rachel: Sometimes farmers would make off-hand comments to the effect of “a longer growing season isn’t something to complain about!” or “Wouldn’t it be great to grow avocados in Vermont?”

When not speaking in jest, however, several farmers confirm what researchers also know: more frost free days in a growing season is only one piece of the puzzle. Daylight hours, which have a large impact on many kinds of crops, will not change as the climate warms. In addition, increased warm and wet weather could have a negative effect on crops if it is accompanied by an increase in plant pathogens or increased numbers of pest generations.

One farmer who grows crops in a river valley in central Vermont noted that even in late summer seasons where frosts did not kill his crops, he faced an increase in pests and plant disease that undermined any benefit he garnered from the warm weather.

CSA: Did you notice any BMPs that were of particular value specifically for organic farmers? For conventional growers?

Rachel: We interviewed farmers of both organic and conventional operations, but we didn’t notice BMPs that were specific to either group. Often, organic producers distinguish themselves by noting that soil health and the long term sustainability of their operation guides their decision making and therefore their choice of management practices. The group of organic farmers we interviewed for this project echoed this – but so did the conventional growers!

One dairy farmer comes to mind who manages a farm spread between several towns in northern Vermont. He is a fifth generation dairy farmer and is very good at thinking about the long term sustainability of his family’s operation. He is particularly attentive to managing the flow of nutrients and water on his farm and uses practices that minimize manure run off and seepage from stored feed.

The BMPs we identified were not aligned with either organic or conventional farming approaches. Rather, we found the more stark distinction between groups of farmers to be based on the timeframe in which they were planning their management strategies. Farmers who think strategically about the distant future of their farm may be more attracted to some BMPs, while farmers who only plan one to five years ahead may be more attracted to others.

Each BMP varies in terms of the timeframe in which it is effective. For example, if a farmer diversifies their markets today, they have almost immediately realized the benefit of that strategy. If that same farmer plants a riparian buffer along a stream bank, they may see 15 years pass before that buffer is established.

CSA: Effective communication between service providers and farmers requires a lot of work and trust-building; this can be especially true around the topic of climate change. Are there key characteristics of the service providers you interviewed, and the way they communicated that enable them to develop strong relationships with farmers?

Rachel: While we didn’t ask farmers specifically about qualities of effective service providers, we did ask them where they received their most useful and trusted information. We can also make our own list of qualities of service providers based on our anecdotal observations of those we interviewed and our experience with this group.

Farmers reported a few organizations to whom they looked regularly for production advice including:

However, before they mentioned an organization or technical service provider, all of the farmers said that they relied heavily on their peers.

This tells us that practitioners want to learn from practitioners, and that a good service provider is one that can facilitate learning opportunities between peers. We believe that a deeper level of climate change science needs to be shared with farmers, and that providing opportunities for key individuals to keep abreast of new research will benefit wide networks of farmers.

Second, we observed that the technical service providers that could most effectively work with farmers on limiting climate change risk understand climate change on a global level. They take initiative to educate themselves beyond what they hear on the news and can distinguish good quality information from theatrical politics.

Rather, addressing risk in all its forms is their mission and approach, and sharing the excitement about innovative adaptation approaches is part of what makes them invaluable to farmers.

CSA: Thank you for talking with us. Any additional thoughts you’d like to pass along?

Rachel: There is a big elephant in the room, and that is that this project is primarily focused on climate change adaptation, but does not address climate change mitigation. There are some that say that climate change is still too politicized a topic, primarily because of debate over if human activity causes climate change or not.  In our study, we found that most people believe that climate change is real, and many believe that human activity is a significant driver. This last point is the most contentious in the United States, as anyone who listens to the news or follows politics knows.

Furthermore, we contend that in order to be resilient in the long run, we all have to acknowledge humanity’s role in the changes to come. Even as we take ownership of this fact, the science is clear that climate change is happening and we will have to adapt. That is the justification for the focus of our work.

The full report can be found here.

7 Aug

Report on climate change resilience for service providers: Part 1

Posted by Center for Sustainable Ag. in adaptation, farming and climate change, food systems, organic, sustainable agriculture.

Originally posted on July 8, 2015 on the Farming & Climate Change Adaptation Blog

Rachel Schattman with the Agroecology and Rural Livelihoods Group joined us to talk about the findings of her project with the Vermont Agricultural Resilience in a Changing Climate Initiative, Rachel, a former UVM Extension Center for Sustainable Agriculture staffer and current doctoral candidate, conducted extensive interviews with Vermont farmers and agricultural service providers.  Her goal was to delve into the approaches Vermont farmers are taking to increase resiliency and limit the risks they face due to changing climate.  Rachel’s project also investigates the role of the service provider in improving agricultural resilience and the key adaptation strategies for Northeastern farmers.

(The full publication can be found here.  Its full reference is:  Schattman, R.E., H.M. Aitken, V.E. Méndez & M. Caswell (2014) Climate change resilience on Vermont farms: a research report for service providers. ARLG Research Brief # 2. Agroecology and Rural Livelihoods Group (ARLG), University of Vermont: Burlington, VT.)

Center for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA):  We find your publication very helpful in terms of identifying and categorizing the dominant adaptation approaches of farmers in the state and region.  Through your interviews, did you get the sense that farmers and service providers were on the same page regarding climate change?  Was it as much of a priority for farmers as it was for service providers?

Rachel:   For this part of the project, we interviewed 15 farmers and 12 service providers. Both groups were clear that climate change is real and that it is a big deal for everyone in agriculture, though not everyone has the same degree of knowledge about climate change or how it will affect agriculture in the northeastern United States.

DSCN0046

Produce Safety Coordinator Ginger Nickerson at an Irrigation Workshop

It’s less a case of farmers thinking one thing and technical service providers thinking another, than a situation where farmers are not all of one mind and nor are technical service providers.

Specifically, we asked farmers how much climate change played into their farm management decisions, and we asked technical service providers if and how they talked about climate change with farmers. The farmers did not all prioritize climate change to the same degree: those that suffered losses with Tropical Storm Irene, or who were located in areas where erosion and flooding are reoccurring challenges, tend to be more concerned. These farmers know that climate change in the Northeast will likely mean more frequent and intense rainstorms, more floods, etc.  We found that these farmers had knowledge of climate change that was more accurate and nuanced than other farmers.  Likewise, some technical service providers were highly knowledgeable about climate change and others were less so, though most had questions about how to best support the farming community through the changes that are to come.

CSA:  Diversification, in a variety of ways, is a time-tested risk mitigation strategy and was a dominant adaptation strategy of the farmers you interviewed.  Was it your impression that farmers diversified initially to mitigate risk from other sources, and then continued after seeing the benefits for climate change resilience?  Or was it the impacts of climate change that prompted the diversification?

Rachel:  Yes, diversification is a widely used strategy for mitigating many different types of risk including economic, ecological and production risks.

Increased intensification of risk can look like a field that has flooded every 25 years in the past starting to flood more frequently under new climatic conditions. It can also look like spikes in fungal diseases on plants because of more humidity and warmer atmospheric temperatures.

A farmer’s initial reason for diversifying may have been market related (e.g. wanting to have several different types of sales avenues), crop or product related (e.g. drought or moisture resistant crops, animal and crop systems), or a livelihood decision (e.g. off-farm jobs or other sources of income).  The type of diversification a farmer chooses depends on the specific threats their business faces and the particular resources they have to draw upon.

The farmers that we interviewed reported diversification strategies that were originally adopted for reasons other than climate change.  They also acknowledged that these same strategies put them in a good position as climate change intensifies preexisting threats such as increased frequency and intensity of storms and flooding.

As farmers learn more about climate change, they also tweak their diversification strategies. For example, we interviewed one business owner who chose to site several new greenhouses on a piece of land that is less vulnerable to high winds, which she believes will be a more important factor in the future. This same farmer chose stronger construction materials for the greenhouses because she believes structural integrity of these structures would become more of an issue as intense storms become more frequent.

This interview continues in Report on climate change resilience for service providers – Part 2: Best Management Practices go hand in hand with Climate Change Adaptation.

 

2 Jul

Adapting to Heavy Rain at LePage Farm

Posted by Center for Sustainable Ag. in farming and climate change, organic, produce growing, produce safety, sustainable agriculture.

Originally published on the Farming & Climate Change Adaptation Blog on June 24, 2015

As southern areas of the region still need rain, northern areas have received more than enough over the past few weeks.  Given these recent heavy storms, we thought we would focus on measures farmers are using to adapt to such events, which are predicted to become more and more common with climate change.  We welcome Catherine Lowther, faculty at Goddard College, for another guest blog profiling a local farmer working hard to adapt.

CapCityFarmersMktFarmCCBlog

Alan LePage is a fifth generation Vermont farmer and has been growing vegetables organically for 40 years at the LePage Farm in Barre, VT. He sells his produce at the Montpelier Farmer’s Market and shares his knowledge in his radio show “The Curse of the Golden Turnip” on the Goddard College radio station, WGDR, at 91.1 FM or at http://www.wgdr.org Sunday mornings from 6:00-9:00.

The biggest climate change problem Alan has experienced is “gully washer storms,” localized storms when 4 – 6 inches of rain falls in a short period of time. His soil is clay loam and is slow to drain. When that much rain falls in early summer on fresh tilled ground, a farmer can lose everything. There can be serious damage with sandy soil too, but it drains more rapidly. With clay loam there will be standing water, he can’t get onto his fields with equipment for some time, and he has lost crops as a result. To manage these events, he has switched to using extensive raised beds. To create the raised beds, he uses a bog harrow that has two large harrow disks that toss dirt up to the side to form the beds. If the soil is loose, the harrowing alone works fine, but if it is clumpy, it will need to be raked after harrowing.

If water runs off into the valleys on the sides of the beds and the ground is bare, this will create ravines, so he leaves the areas between the beds protected by weeds to hold the soil. To prevent the weeds from going to seed, he trims them with a weed wacker.

He is also making extensive use of plastic to cover beds to protect them against rain. In years with successions of intense rainstorms, he has covered entire seedings with 10×500’ tarps. This is especially helpful when seeding in June for a fall harvest. He has tried using hay mulch, but a big storm will push hay into the mud.

Most of his fields are on a slight incline, and using raised beds has obviated the damage that occurs in intense storms. He has had to be more careful about the placement of beds so that there is less chance of getting a river running through a field. In general, he finds it is very important when planning a sloped field to terrace it to minimize the downward direction of water flow. It also helps to break a field into sections with strips of cover crops that will absorb and break the flow of water.

He has also had to do a lot more plant staking, especially of fava beans. On Memorial Day weekend in 2013, he had 6 inches of rain, and if he hadn’t had his fava beans staked and roped, rain would have knocked them down, they would have gotten caught in the mud, and he would have lost the whole crop. Corn can stand up again after a rain, but fava beans are a Mediterranean plant and aren’t used to intense water events.

Insects

Alan is seeing more squash borers and squash bugs. Squash bugs inject a toxin that deforms plants. There can be enormous populations of them in late summer, and their little white progeny sometimes cover the ground. They damage cucumbers and zucchini. He never used to see them, and now they are a perennial problem.

He has also had tarnish plant bugs. These suck plant juices, attack the primary meristem of a plant, and destroy it. They also sting strawberry blossoms so that the fruit is deformed. They are especially active at temperatures in the 90s. Tarnish plant bugs are very difficult to treat. He uses an organic product called Entrust that costs $600/lb., or people can use the same thing in Monterey Garden Insect Spray that is ready to spray on. Growers can use it only three times per season per crop because insects will build up resistance to it, but it does work.

Higher Temperatures

Alan has not had too much trouble with heat as his soils are high in clay and slow to warm. He has noticed that in a very hot summer, it is hard to get lettuce to germinate. It won’t germinate in soils over 75 degrees, goes into dormancy, and comes up next year. He has tried starting seeds in flats under lilac trees and keeping them watered to keep them cool. Spinach also doesn’t like high temperatures, especially if it is late summer seeded and soil temperatures are too high.

Drought

Alan has had only one year of drought. Many farmers are near rivers and irrigate their fields from the rivers, but he has a hill farm. In 2001, he had to truck in water to keep his plants alive. Others growing on well-drained land lost a lot. The spring for his house also went dry.

Benefits of Warming

On the positive side, increasing temperatures over the last 30 years have made it possible to plant some crops he could never grow before. September is especially warmer. Sweet potatoes are now viable, especially if there is good soil, and he has had some spectacular sweet potato crops. He is also planting “yard long” beans, an Asian species that requires a long season.

Catherine Lowther, PhD

Catherine is faculty in the Sustainability program, and Chair of the Sustainability Committee at Goddard College in Plainfield, Vermont.  She is partnering with the Center’s Farming & Climate Change Program by appearing as a guest blogger on the Farming & Climate Change Adaptation Blog, a project with the USDA Northeast Climate Hub to engage, learn from, and share information with organic farmers within the region.

28 Apr

When it Comes to Farms, the Right Size Matters

Posted by Center for Sustainable Ag. in cattle, diversified farms, farming and climate change, grass farming, grazing, livestock, pasture, sustainable agriculture.

Kimberly Hagen, Pasture Program
Originally published in the Center’s Cultivating Connections Newsletter, April 2015

Grazing Cows

This Connecticut River Valley farm is owned by farmers who pay a great deal of attention to the balance they need to keep their farm at the right size for their goals, their animals’ health, and the capacity of their land.

Right-sizing: it’s what all farms must do if they are to stay profitable, and in balance, preserving the integrity of the soil, water and air, both on the farm and in the surrounding environment. As the water quality issue moves Vermont and its agricultural community into deeper levels of debate on how to address the issue, it’s clear that each farm must also work to find that “right size.”

Each farm has a unique set of variables due to its bedrock, soils, topography, water ( both underground and on the surface), type of livestock, vegetation and owner. It’s not unlike baking a cake. You lay out the ingredients, and then mix in proper proportion for taste, lightness and the fit to the pan it will be baked in. If the proportions are off, it won’t taste good, it may not rise, and it won’t fit in the pan, and overflow onto the oven floor makes for a tedious clean-up. That can happen with farms too.

Unfortunately, overflow from a farm is more than just tedious, it is costly: nutrients are lost and overloaded vegetation, soil and water sputter with the suffocation in a toxic brew or starve with overtaxing removal of nutrients needed for reproduction. The productivity potential is lost. Not only does the farm lose, but we all do as that toxicity taxes the farm’s soil and water and the local community’s collectively owned environment, lessening its productivity as well.

For example, if the wet areas or streams on your farm look like chocolate milk every time there is precipitation, nutrients are not being absorbed on the farm, and instead are making a quick exit. If you find you are feeding your animals stored feed by the beginning of July, you might want to think about reevaluating your land: livestock ratio, or at least your current management of them. These are signals of a need for better balance, and a change in management is often the simplest, and least expensive approach for getting started. Buffalo, cows and horses are heavy animals with 1000 pounds and more distributed on four feet. Confine them to a small area for weeks or months and it doesn’t take long before problems arise. Equally disruptive is frequent tillage and constant bare soil exposure. Moving air and water can hastily capture the freely floating nutrients, and carry them away, dropping them where they might not be needed or wanted – like a nearby lake or river..

Not long ago, I listened to a farmer describing the journey he had made after rejecting the conventional practices expected for a farming operation. He rejected that path because he was losing so much money, yet working harder than ever, and had no time with his family. His farm was not healthy and neither was he. Yet farming was his choice of profession. He decided to trust his own observations and judgement and after several years of trials seeking the match for the soils, the water, the vegetation, the livestock and the quality of life he wanted, he found the right size for his farm.

The familiarity was instant – this is a concept that I, like many of my colleagues, carry around in my mind. It’s succinct and descriptive. And it really is the core of what we do – working with farmers to find the right balance, that sweet spot of what the farm has for ingredients, its potential for productivity, and considering how best to manage those ingredients for the best possible outcome for meeting today’s needs. All while keeping a careful eye towards continued productivity into a sustainable future.

As one of UVM Extension’s technical service providers, I walk a careful path: listening to what farmers want, providing them with the information from research, yet also informing them of the parameters shaped by both the natural world and by humans. Our ultimate purpose is to help farmers find the farm practices and size that meet their own needs and goals, while maintaining balance with their community and natural resources.

This coming field season, we move into some new territory in the Connecticut River watershed (see pg. 7 of the Spring 2015 newsletter) . We look forward to working with farmers to find the right size for their operations – keeping the soil and water on their farms and in the river, clean, healthy and productive.

 

Newer Entries »
Skip to toolbar