Arable Food for Thought

[Blaithin]

Sometimes I get musings while I drive. What if scenarios of sorts.

Please bear in mind I am not an arable farmer. The intricacies of it are not my forte. Even more so, I am not a mechanic LOL Do not expect me to know even the basic workings of a combine. It has wheels.

With that said, what are the general Agriville gentleman's and lady's view on polyculture cropping? Potentially beneficial, too much work, just a PITA, makes sense, maybe one day or never going to happen.

I'm a firm believer in the benefits of diveristy. Ecosystems thrive on diversity, genetics thrive on diversity, yet somehow, our crops have been narrowed down to just one monoculture. I enjoy reading up and trying to implement companion planting in my little garden. Some things work better than others depending on what the result is supposed to be. As farmers, you will all know (or should I'd hope!) the basic ideas of nitrogen fixing plants and utilizing them in crop rotations. These wonderful plants work even better when planted along side others instead of in rotations. The rising popularity of cover crops shows that not all people are immune to the knowledge of beneficial companion planting, even if that's not the term they'd use. However that's just such a small slice of the potential pie. The ability to boost a plants immune system with diveristy, boost the soil health, even increase yield per acre, it's all there! Yet so few are even willing to listen...

By so few I mean those wonderful people on Facebook who prefer to be naysayers and tell you you're an idiot for trying to think outside the box LOL

Now I know many polycultures are pain in the asses when used in current industry management ways. Especially on the large scale. It's one thing if you're hand picking something on a small scale. But I do know producers who have tried, generally in silages, to use different mixes. The biggest issue they run into is too big of differences in maturity times for different crops. Normally this would be a fairly insurmountable obstacle however in todays day and age of GMO why shouldn't times from seeding to maturity be aligned to potentially allow for better polyculture planting. I'm no scientist however I'd think that would be just as possible as making something round up ready. But then you have equipment issues and their ability to seed and harvest multiple crops and separate them. Do I have the answers? No, like I said, not a mechanic. However I grew up with the Prairie Farm Report and do know the initiative farmers can have. Nothing breeds inventions like need! If we don't need a multi crop harvesting tool, why would it be designed? I don't think equipment is the limiting factor to polycrop fields, equipment will catch up to the job. The main limiting factor in my mind is the plants themselves, which is what GMO could help influence.

I figure the industry is always growing in some way. Current modes have it growing more in the chemical direction. New chemicals, new ways to use chemicals, new crops that can withstand the chemicals, etc. I'd just like to see another avenue of growth as well.

Thoughts? Good, general experience/views discussion that doesn't involve just one line of "You're dumb." I've heard that one already, it doesn't usually result in a discussion and I like discussions.

[ajl]

What is wrong with the way things are done now? We have an oversupply of good quality foods so the current system looks like it is working. Have tried a mixture of canola and peas one time and it sort of worked but not good enough to increase returns as the peas shelled somewhat. I think that farmers are going to have to learn to cut back a bit as they over invest on inputs to a small extent but that will happen naturally as bank accounts empty. If the accounts don't empty that will be a sign that inputs are largely optimized.

[farmaholic]

Is Grassfarmer your professor?

Obviously the way in perennial pastures.

Not the easiest to accomplish with field scale cropping, herbicide compatibility, maturity timing, harvestability of two types of crops(combine settings), do pulses actually provide any nitrogen to the companion crop in the year the two are grown together?, post harvest conditioning(possibly drying) and separating. Would the intercropping consistently net more dollars than mono-cropping?

But I'm not saying it can't be done

Enter Grassy....

[Blaithin]

Hah he is not my professor no. Although I would not be adverse to that as I think he has quite a bit he could teach me that I would love to learn.

Post harvest separating would be easier with certain crops. Peas are easily separated from wheat. The cons of that would be running peas through the cleaners and increasing splits and the pea crop smothering out the wheat. But this is all theory anyway, they're just an easy example of things to separate hah Obviously if drying needed to be done then cleaning would have to happen first. Then again, most elevators will clean before drying anyway to minimize fire hazards. However post harvest separating would be a bigger issue for similar size seeds like wheat and barley. I don't think colour sorting would be a practical option for that. Then again, how beneficial would wheat and barley be together... things to think of.

I think pulse crops absolutely help when they're grown as companions. Look at the 3 sisters. Corn, beans squash. They weren't historically grown together because they didn't help each other in short time spans.

Would it net more dollars? Who knows. Once upon a time, long, long ago, I read (and lost the link for) a trial done on an organic farm with intercropping. Each crop net yielded lower than when it was the sole crop however when each crops yield was added together the yield was larger per acre than for a single crop. The trial was veggies and the harvest was fairly manual, but I think the premise can still stand.

AJL, I take your comment to mean that you think the industry can in no way improve now and is at it's pinnacle of potential and perfection? I don't think there's anything really wrong with how things are done now, I just think some things could be done better. Like the path towards soil health and productivity. Fertilizers are fickle things, why try and walk a tightrope that costs so much money and can cause so much damage to the environment when a different management technique could get you similar results naturally? Things should always change, whether it ends up being better or worse, but no change means it's stagnant. Stagnant isn't good. Always room for improvement, always room for change.

That's one of my mottos anyway LOL

[helmsdale]

Know a guy going organic looking to seed a minimum of 2 products every year. Bought one of those almaz seed cleaners to separate after harvest or hopefully during harvest. Will be interesting to see how he makes out.

[ajl]

I am saying that practices generally adopted have stood the test of time and work good now. There are always improvements but will take a lot to move forward from here. Law of diminishing marginal return. Lots of ideas but few are good. At a canola meeting there was a long term rotational study. Normal rotation here is wheat/canola. Data from the study suggested that from a return perspective, just grow continuous canola is the smart choice. Took two years out of canola with a pulse in it to have positive canola rotation effect. Hard to grow pulses here in the swamp so farmers have given up. Can't buy a dry day here. Might as well do canola, snow, canola. Not politically correct but that is what the data said. Not what he speakers was trying to promote. Bottom line is something work in an area and little else does.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The theory is really good. Fix nitrogen, outcompete the weeds, keep something growing for the entire season, add extra organic matter etc.

Monocropping is working really well and is very profitable because we have relatively cheap nitrogen and effective chemical weed control. If we ever lose either of those, it won't look so good anymore.

Last year I dabbled in transitioning a couple quarters to organic(then decided against continuing that route) seeded barley for grain with a blend of clovers for a plow down the following year. Mother nature didn't like my idea, and drowned out the barley in the low spots shortly after seeding, then never rained again. The result was a great crop of clover in all the low ground, and a great crop of barley on the high ground(some very parched clover which had no moisture left) with and a small area in between where both thrived. So instead of having nothing productive in the low spots as would have been the case normally, I had a very good silage crop of clover. I presume I can give some nitrogen credit to the clover that did grow on the high ground, since the barley yielded far better than it should have. I then baled the straw for feed since it contained a lot of clover which the cows pick through and eat, then turned the cows into the stubble where they ate the remaining clover.

So, I consider the experiment to be a success, but it might have been a disaster on a wet year if the clover really took off. I'm planning to do some more again, not for organic, but for all the other benefits.

In our short season where stand alone cover crop options are almost none, plus with taxes on fertilizers and potentially taxes on emissions from fertilizers, I can see companion cropping becoming more popular.

[grassfarmer]

These systems definitely have agronomic potential. Lack of livestock on grain farms will limit the uptake of the practices. Sure you might be able to grow two crops at once for harvest but to have a wider range of options and beneficial practices you need livestock for utilisation. I am turned off by the outrageous cost of seed on many of these cover crops - didn't take long for another group of parasites to jump in and take from the farmer's pocket the money they were supposed to save by cutting fertiliser or spray use. Realise that these systems were pioneered in the northern US states where the cover crops are subsidized by the Government on environmental grounds.

[ajl]

Mixed farming is another concept that seems good in theory but is unworkable in practice. In central to northern AB there are only 50 days of good weather per year and both cattle and grain enterprises compete for the same time. All cattle producers here have pushed calving latter to get out of the harsh weather but that means the seeding equipment is not ready on time. A strait grain farm with a pulse rotation and a heated shop to do off season maintenance does work. Now that interest rates are not zero, can't trade equipment nearly as often. Another issue is manure. It is a disposal headache as it costs more in labor and fuel to move it to where it can do good than the nutrients are worth most of the time which is because it is not a great source of N. I think a plant based diet with animal products as more of a luxury item is more efficient.

[blackpowder]

Not sure. But perhaps in the future we will all have a better understanding of all the biological and other interactions going on in the soil.
If we managed the soil organisms as we would a herd of cows maybe a more sustainable production would follow. Treating it as a polyculture. Leading to further possibilities for the plants growing in it.

[Hopalong]

Suspect that, something like genetic manipulation, monoculture is something that mankind has played around with since the dawn of agriculture.
Do not see polyculture going anywhere fast in own farm situation.

[burnt]

While poly-culture is too new and untried here to support any kind of impact statement, a recent OSCIA meeting I attended showed that there is very compelling evidence that supports the use of cover crops.

A panel of farmers, young and older, showcased their experiences to demonstrate the benefits they have documented. To be fair, it was mainly younger farmers, a fact which I found very encouraging.

While a simple, single choice of cover crop (like oats or cereal rye) can bring results, those who are going to multi-species blends are seeing marked improvements in many areas of soil biology - organic matter increases, tilth, biological diversity, improved harvest conditions, lowered compaction, better moisture retention, better soil warming, to name a few.

So, not surprisingly, several years of data indicate that better yields are following.

Some of the data was created with the use of GPS-yield mapping. Many have gone to strip tillage and inter-seeding cover crops, leaving the majority of the surface area untouched and growing a cover crop that persists after harvest.

Also, several of them are eventually harvesting the cover crop as forage, creating another commodity or feed source.

It makes me wonder why it took so long to develop an awareness of this very natural and beneficial practice.

[bucket]

It won't until someone ...sorry some big business. ....can figure a way to charge the shit out of primary producers for special blends.....

[sumdumguy]

Blaithin, it appears as though youare leaning toward Milpa farmingthat was practiced in the Yucatan Peninsula. Historically they plant in a hole, a bean or pea for nitrogen to feed a corn plant that in turn provided shade for a melon. A complete system, Interesting!

[grassfarmer]

Mixed farming is another concept that seems good in theory but is unworkable in practice. In central to northern AB there are only 50 days of good weather per year and both cattle and grain enterprises compete for the same time. All cattle producers here have pushed calving latter to get out of the harsh weather but that means the seeding equipment is not ready on time. A strait grain farm with a pulse rotation and a heated shop to do off season maintenance does work. Now that interest rates are not zero, can't trade equipment nearly as often. Another issue is manure. It is a disposal headache as it costs more in labor and fuel to move it to where it can do good than the nutrients are worth most of the time which is because it is not a great source of N. I think a plant based diet with animal products as more of a luxury item is more efficient.

I think there are solutions to these problems but they are not going to come from conventional thinking. Instead of owning cows maybe some farmers would be in a position to incorporate some alfalfa in their rotations, hay it, then bale graze with a ranchers cows over winter on a custom basis? Transferring the workload with the cows to the winter period when the farmer might have more time, getting the benefit of a break in rotation and returning the nutrients back to the soil in places where they are most needed with no mechanical manure hauling (or cattle ownership risk) involved. Late fall grazing of cover crops could be harvested by custom cows too.

It won't until someone ...sorry some big business. ....can figure a way to charge the shit out of primary producers for special blends.....

You're behind the times bucket - happened about 3 years ago. Plenty small businesses trying to "help other farmers" by selling them special blends in the $60-$70 range. Many of the young pioneering producers I know have tried these systems and moved on. I think they have merit but we need to have a better understanding of the complexities.