Gardening) Applying the Principles of Sustainable Farming

8/3/2019 Gardening) Applying the Principles of Sustainable Farming

1/16

ATTRA is the national sustainable agriculture information service operated by the National Centerfor Appropriate Technology, through a grant from the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture. These organizations do not recommend or endorse products,companies, or individuals. NCAT has offices in Fayetteville, Arkansas (P.O. Box 3657, Fayetteville,

AR 72702), Butte, Montana, and Davis, California.

APPLYINGTHE PRINCIPLESOF

SUSTAINABLE FARMING

FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Sustainable farming meets environmental, economic, and social objectives simultaneously. Environmentally sound

agriculture is nature-based rather than factory-based. Economic sustainability depends on profitable enterprises,

sound financial planning, proactive marketing, and risk management. Social sustainability results from making

decisions with the farm family ' s and the larger community' s quality of life as a value and a goal. This publication

discusses the principles of environmental, economic, and social sustainability, and provides practical examples of

how to apply them on the farm.

TABLEOF CONTENTS

Introduction .................................................. 1Environmental Sustainability........................ 2

Economic Sustainability ............................... 6Planning and Decision Making .................... 7

Applying the Principles ................................ 8

Composts, Manures, and Fertilizers ........... 10Weed Management .................................... 11

Insect Pest Management ............................ 12Plant Disease Management ........................ 13

Examples of Successful Transitions ........... 13

Summary ..................................................... 15References.................................................. 15

Resources ................................................... 16

INTRODUCTION

By Preston Sullivan

NCAT Agriculture Specialist

May 2003

Farming sustainably means growing crops

and livestock in ways that meet three objectives

simultaneously:

Economic profit

Social benefits to the farm family and

the community

Environmental conservation

Sustainable agricul-

t u re d ep en d s o n a

whole-sys tem ap-

proach whose overall

goal is the continuing

health of the land and

peop le. Therefore i tconcentrates on long-

term solutions to prob-

lems instead of short-

t e rm t r ea t men t o f

symptoms.
mailto:%[email protected]:%[email protected]


2/16/ / APPLYING THE PRINCIPLESOF SUSTAINABLE FARMINGPAGE 2

Sustainable farming is more th an a set of ide-

alistic principles or a limited set of practices.

Sustainability can be observed and measured;

indicators that a farm or rural community is

achieving the three objectives of sustainability

include:

ECONOMICSUSTAINABILITY

The family savings or n et worth is con-

sistently going up

The family debt is consistently going down

The farm enterprises are consistently

profitable from year to year

Purchase of off-farm feed and fertilizer is

decreasing

Reliance on governm ent payments is de-

creasing

SOCIALSUSTAINABILITY

The farm su pp orts other businesses and

families in th e commun ity

Dollars circulate w ithin the local econom y

The num ber of rural families is going u p

or holding steady

Young people take over their pa rents'

farms and continue farming

College gradu ates return to the comm u-

nity after grad uation

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

There is no bare grou nd

Clean water flows in the farm 's ditches and

streams

Wildlife is abun dan t

Fish ar e prolific in streams th at flow

through the farm

The farm land scape is diverse in vegeta-

tion

These three objectives are m anaged more asa single unit, even though w e mu st discuss them

separ ately. The three objectives overlap con-

stantly. For example, econom ic decisions affect

the local comm un itybuying from out of state

instead of from a local sup plier. Environmental

decisions affect th e econom icallowing soil ero-

sion increases the need for irrigation and more

fertilizer. Each of these objectives is further ex-

amined below.

ENVIRONMENTALSUSTAINABILITY

Sustainable agricultu re can be viewed as eco-

system management of complex interactions

among soil, water, plants, animals, climate, and

peop le. The goal is to integrate all these factors

into a prod uction system that is app ropriate for

the environment, the people, and the economicconditions w here the farm is located.

Farms become an d stay environmentally sus-

tainable by imitating na tural systemscreating

a farm landscape tha t mimics as closely as p os-

sible the comp lexity of healthy ecosystems. Na-

ture tends to function in cycles, so that waste

from one process or system becomes input for

another. Indu strial agriculture, in contrast, tends

to function in a linear fashion similar to a fac-

tory: inputs go in one end, and products and

waste come out the other. The wastes of indu s-trial agricultu re (non -point-source pollut ion) in-

clude suspended soil, nitrates, and phosphates

in stream water, and nitrates and pesticides in

groun d w ater. It is a premise of sustainable ag-

riculture that a farm is a nature-based system,

not a factory.

The simp ler we try to m ake agriculture, the

more vu lnerable we become to natura l disasters

and m arketplace changes. When we try to pro-

duce a single product such as wheat, corn, or

soybeans we are taking on huge risk. If instead

we diversify crops and integrate plant and ani-mal agriculture, overhead will be spread over

several enterprises, reducing risk and increasing

profit. Table 1 offers some comp arisons between

two m odels of agriculturefarming as an ind us-

trial factory and farming as a biological system.

Comparison of the Industrial andBiological Models of Agriculture

Industrial model Biological model

Energy intensive Information intensive

Linear process Cyclical process

Farm as factory Farm as ecosystem

Enterpr ise separat ion Enterpr ise integration

Single enterprise Many enterprises

Monoculture Diversity of plants and animals

L ow-value prod uc ts H ig he r-va lu e p ro du ct s

Single-use equipment Mult iple-use equipment

Passive marketing Active marketing

TABLE 1

________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________


3/16PAGE 3/ / APPLYING THE PRINCIPLESOF SUSTAINABLE FARMING

Figure 1. Energy Flow. Source: Sullivan, 1999. Illustration by Janet Bachmann.

FARMAS ECOSYSTEM

On any farm , four major ecosystem processes are at work that, if fun ctioning p roperly, will con-

serve the soil and w ater resources and eventu ally redu ce the overall operating costs. These natu ral

processesenergy flow, water and mineral cycles, and ecosystem dynamicsare observable and

manageable.

Energy flow is the non-cyclical path of solar energy (sunlight) into and through any biologicalsystem (Figure 1). The natural world ru ns on sunlight. Our m anagement decisions affect how m uch

of it is captu red and pu t to good u se on the farm (Savory an d Butterfield, 1999). Energy flow begins

when sunlight is converted into plant growth, and continues when animals consume plants, when

predator animals consume prey, and when microorganisms d ecompose d ead p lants and animals.

Some energy is lost as heat at every transfer p oint in the food chain. On the farm , energy capture is

enhan ced by m aximizingboth in space and in timethe leaf area available for ph otosynthesis, and

by efficiently cycling the stored solar energy throu gh the food chain. Off-season cover crop s, peren-

nial vegetation, and intercropp ing are among the tools for captu ring more solar energy. Captu ring

sunlight and converting it to dollars is the original source of all wealth.

An effective water cycle is typified byno soil erosion, fast water en try into the soil, and

the soil 's capacity to store large amounts of

wa ter (Figure 2). Streams flow year-rou nd from

the slow release of water stored in the soil. The

water cyc le i s improved by management

deci s ions tha t add to o r main ta in the

groun dcover percentage and soil organic matter

levelsthe goal is to get as much water as

possible into the soil d ur ing each rainfall. A

surface mulch layer speeds water intake while

reducing evaporation and protecting the soil

from erosion. Minimizing or eliminating tillage,

growing high-residu e crops and cover crops, and

add ing comp ost or manu re to the soil maintains

groundcover and bu i lds o rgan ic mat te r .

Management of soil organic matter is especially

impor tant in row cropp ing. One recent stud y

(Hudson , 1994) showed tha t ra i s ing the

percentage of organic matter from 1% to 2% in

sand y soil increased the available water content

of that soil by 60% (from 5% of total soil volume

to 8%). Such an imp rovem ent in a soil ' s

water-hold ing capacity will have a beneficial ef-

fect on crop growth, especially during drought

periods.

The resu lts of an effective water cycle are low

surface ru noff, low soil surface evaporation, low

drought incidence, low flood incidence, high

transpiration by plants, and high seepage of wa-

ter to underground reservoirs (Savory and

But terfield , 1999).



Figure 2. Water Cycle. Source: Federal Interagency StreamRestoration Working Group, 2001.

A well-fun ctioning mineral cyclethe movement of nu trients from th e soil through the cropsand animals and back to the soilmeans less need for fertilizer and feed from off the farm (Figure 3).

In nature, minerals needed for plant and animal growth are continu ously recycled w ithin the eco-

system with very little waste and no need for add ed fertilizer. Ultimately, to be sustainable, we n eed

to find ways to u se the natura l mineral cycle to minimize our off-farm p urchase of minerals. Cond i-

tions and practices that inhibit the natu ral m ineral cycleerosion, nu trient leaching, organic matter

dep letion, selling h ay or gra in off the farmtend to redu ce the farm 's sustainability. Practices that

enhan ce the mineral cycle includ e on-farm feeding of livestock, careful m anagem ent of man ure and

crop residues, use of catch crops to redu ce nutrient leaching losses, and practices that p revent ero-

sion.



An effective ecosystem dynamic is ind icated by a high d iversity of plants and animals bothabove and below groun d. "Diversity" refers not only to n um bers of species, but also to genetic diver-

sity within species and to a broad age structure in each pop ulation. Greater diversity prod uces greater

stability w ithin th e system and minimizes pest p roblems. Our choices of practices and tools directly

affect the level of biodiversity w e hav e on th e farm (Table 2).

The first step tow ard increasing biodiversity on th e farm is crop rotation, wh ich h elps break w eed

and pest life cycles and provides complementary fertilization among the crops in the planting se-

quence. Advancing from rotation to strip intercrops brings a higher level of biodiversity and in-

creases sunlight captu re. Strip intercropping of corn and soybeans or cotton and alfalfa are twoexamples. Borders, wind breaks, and special plantings for natural enemies of pests provide habitat

for beneficial organ isms, furth er increasing biodiversity and stability. The ad d ition of appropr iate

perenn ial crops, shrubs, and trees to the farmscape enhances ecosystem d ynam ics still further. For

more information on p ractices that increase biodiversity, request the ATTRA pu blicationsAgroforestry

Overview,Intercropping Principles and Production Practices, and Farmscaping to Enhance Biological Con-

trol.

These four ecosystem processes (energy flow, water cycle, mineral cycle, and ecosystem dynam-

ics) fun ction together as a wh ole, each one comp lementing the others. When w e mod ify any one of

these, we affect the others as well. When w e build our farm enterprises around these processes, we

are app lying natu re's principles to sustain the farm for our family and for futu re generations. When

we fight nature's processes, we incur extra costs and create more p roblems, hurting our selves and the

ecosystem on which we depend.

Figure 3. Mineral Cycle. Source: Sullivan, 1999.Illustration by Andrea Fournet.

LISTINGOFTOOLSBYTHEIREFFECTONIncreased

Biodiversity

DecreasedBiodiversity

Intercropping Crop rotation Cover crops Multispecies grazing

TABLE 2

Monocropping Tillage Herbicides Insecticides
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/intercrop.pdfhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/farmscaping.pdfhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/farmscaping.pdfhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/farmscaping.pdfhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/farmscaping.pdfhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/intercrop.pdfhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7C



A profitable farm has a threadbare look

(Salatin, 1998), primarily because money is not

spent on flashy items that don't produce profit.

Amish farmer David Kline says one of the secrets

of staying profitable is "don't spend money" (Myers,

1998).


SELECTING PROFITABLEENTERPRISESTO ENSURE


Economic sustainability increasingly de-

pend s on selecting p rofitable enterprises, sound

financial planning, proactive marketing, risk

management, and good overall management.

The key for row -crop p rodu cers may be to ex-

plore income opportunities other than tradi-

tional comm odity crops, such as contract grow-

ing of seed corn, specialty corn, food-grade soy-

beans, or popcorn . These specialty crops are not

for everyone; only a certain nu mber of acres can

be grown because of limited markets. Expan d-ing organic markets suggest another possible

niche. "Alterna tive" crops like safflower, sun -

flower, flax, and others may be an option for

lengthening a corn and soybean rotation; learn

more in the ATTRA pu blication Alternative Ag-

ronomic Crops. Other examples of diversifica-

tion strategies are ava ilable in the ATTRA pu b-

licationsEvaluating a Rural Enterprisean d Mov-

ing Beyond Conventional Cash Cropping.

Author and successful small farmer Joel

Salatin (1998) ad vocates going with several "cen-

terpiece" enterprises to which can be ad ded sev-eral "comp lementary" enterp rises. The comp le-

mentary enterprises overlap with the center-

piece enterprises by sharing some of the same

overhead requirements, thus lowering overall

costs for all the enterp rises. When w e try to pro-

duce a single product such as wheat, corn, or

soybeans, our risk is high because "all our eggs

are in one basket." When we integrate plant and

animal agriculture we distribute overhead and

risk among several enterprises.

COMPREHENSIVEFINANCIALPLANNINGISAMUST

The holistic financial plann ing process used

in Holistic Management provides a monthly

roadmap to help people navigate through their

financial year, assured that the profit will bethere at year's end. The income is planned first,

then a planned profit is allocated a s the first ex-

pense item. The remaining expense money is

allocated sequentially w here it w ill do the m ost

good. This sequential allocation requires that

the farmer spend no more than n ecessary to run

the enterprise for a year, while preserving the

planned profit. This potent financial planning

process emp owers p eople to make d ecisions that

are simultaneously good for the environment,

the local comm un ity, and the bottom line. Learn

more by requ esting th e ATTRA pu blication en-

titled Holistic Management. Also evaluate other

financial planning tools that allow enterprise

bud geting, cost calculations, partial bu dgeting

analysis, and morethese should be available

from you r local Extension agent. Business plan-

ning software is available from local softwareretail stores.

Every farm n eeds a marketing plan of some

type. Marketing can take many forms, ranging

from passive marketing in the comm odity chain

to marketing a retail prod uct directly to consum-ers. Which marketing method you choose will

have a profound effect on the price your prod-

uct comm and s. Doing some market research is

essential in order to understand your market,

competition, and consumer trends, and to p roject

poten tial sales volum e and pr ices. Specialty and

direct markets such a s organic, GMO-free, and

other "green" markets yield m ore income but r e-

quire more marketing by the producer. Direct

marketing is not for everyone.

SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

Decisions made on the farm have effects in

the local comm un ity. For example, the decision

to expand your operation requires the acquisi-

tion of your neighbor 's farm. To hav e your

neighbor's farm, you mu st make the decision that

your neighbor's farm is more important to you

than your neighbor. Other examples of social

decisions includ e: buy ing sup plies locally rather
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/altcrops.pdfhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/altcrops.pdfhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/altcrops.pdfhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/evalrural.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/cashcropping.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/cashcropping.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/evalrural.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/altcrops.pdfhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/altcrops.pdf



than ord ering from out of state, figur ing out ways

to connect local consum ers with you r farm, tak-

ing a consumer-oriented ap proach to produ ction

and management pract ices where both the

farmer and consumer w in, and finding opportu-

nities to ensure that neighboring communities

can learn abou t sustainable food p rodu ction.

Marketing strategies such as comm unity sup -

ported agriculture (CSA), direct marketingthroug h farmers' markets, school tours, and in-

ternships all have a positive imp act on the local

community. Wh en people have a choice between

sup porting local produ cers or paying a little less

for the products of the industrial food system,

they w ill often choose to supp ort their neighbors.

Farmers selling locally benefit from d ifferentiat-

ing their prod ucts and services by qualities other

than p rice. Fresh produ ce, specialty items, and

locally grow n an d processed foods ar e competi-

tive in the market place, especially when con-

sumer education and personal contact with the

farmer are part of the marketing plan.

Social sustainability also includes the qual-

ity of life of those w ho w ork and live on the farm ,

including good communication, trust, and mu-

tual supp ort. Full family participation in farm

planning is an indication that the quality of life

is high. Other indicators includ e talking openly

and honestly, spend ing time together, a feeling

of progress toward goals, and general happ iness.

Quality of life will be defined somewhat differ-

ently by each individual and family, based ontheir values and goals. More information on en-

sur ing that quality of life is accounted for in farm

planning is available from the ATTRA publica-

tion Holistic Managementand in books like Rut

Buster: A Visual Goal Setting Book(Burleson and

Burleson , 1994).

PLANNINGANDDECISIONMAKING

Managing for three objectives simultaneously(economics, society, environment) depends on

clear goal-setting and effective decision-making.

Several good tools for decision-making, goal-set-

ting, and wh ole-farm man agement are available

to farm ers. The Kerr Center for Susta inable Ag-

r icu l tu re , fo r example , has developed a

sustainability checksheet with 72 criteria for

quick evaluation of farming systems (Horne an d

McDermott , No date). ATTRA has prod uced

sustainability checksheets for beef and dairy en-

terprises , avai lable by request and on our

website. A more comp rehensive app roach is

Holistic Management, mentioned above. Re-

quest the ATTRA publication entitled Holistic

Managementfor more informa tion, or contact:

Allan Savory Center for HolisticManagement

1010 Tijeras, N.W.

Albuquerqu e, NM 87102

505-842-5252

http:/ / ww w.holisticmanagement.org

A successful transition to sustainable farm-

ing dep end s on the farmer's careful mon itoring

both of progress toward s the goal and of the over-

all health of the system. It is usefu l to assume

that your p lan will not work an d d evelop a sys-

tem for determ ining (as soon as p ossible) if it isn't

working. For examp le, if the goal includes in-

creased biodiversity, the farmer needs to know

quickly if the grazing or cropp ing system be-

ing used is actually increasing the number of

plan t species per acre. Mon itoring is particularly

important in sustainable agriculture, which re-

lies on natural systems to replace some of the

work d one by inpu t prod ucts like fertilizer and

pesticides.

The ability to evaluate an d replan is vital to

the farmer w ho w ishes to farm more sustainably.When p art of the plan is not working as intended,

it becomes necessary to rep lan. The concept of

planning-monitoring-controlling-rep lanning is a

key characteristic of Holistic Management and

is referred to as thefeedback loop.

The transition toward more sustainable farm-

ing requires not only planning and decision-

making skills but access to app ropriate and help-

ful information. Fortun ately, increased interest

in sustainable agriculture h as stimulated greater

investment in research and ed ucation. As a re-

sult, mu ch more usable information is availabletoday than ever before, accessible throu gh v ari-

ous mean s, one of them being ATTRA. In add i-

tion to publications and custom rep orts on pro-

duction and marketing, ATTRA provides re-

source lists covering sustainable agriculture or-

ganizations, edu cational programs, internships,

and related resources. Request an ATTRA Pub-

lications Listor go to the ATTRA w ebsitefor on-

line access to all our p ub lications.
http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/holistic.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/holistic.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/holistic.pdfhttp://www.holisticmanagement.org/http://www.holisticmanagement.org/http://www.holisticmanagement.org/http://attra.ncat.org/publication.htmlhttp://attra.ncat.org/publication.htmlhttp://attra.ncat.org/publication.htmlhttp://www.holisticmanagement.org/http://www.holisticmanagement.org/http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/holistic.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/holistic.pdf



EFFECTOFEROSIONONORGANICMATTER,

PHOSPHORUS, ANDPLANT-AVAILABLEWATER

Source: Schertz et al., 1984

________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

% lbs / ac %

Slight 3 62 7.4

Moderate 2.5 61 6.2

Severe 1.9 40 3.6

Erosion level Organic matter Phosphorus Plant-available water

Table 3.

effect of slight, mod erate, and severe erosion on

organic matter, soil phosph orus level, and plant-

available water on a silt loam soil in Indiana

(Schertz et a l., 1984).

When erosion by water and wind occurs at arate of 7.6 tons/ acre/ year it costs $40/ acre/ year

to replace the lost nutrients as fertilizer, and

around $17/ acre/ year to pump irrigation water

to replace the w ater holding cap acity of that lost

soil (Troeh et al., 1991). Soil and w ater lost from

U.S. cropland causes productivity loss of ap-

proximately $27 billion each year (Pimentel et

al., 1995).

AVOIDMOLDBOARDPLOWINGATALLCOSTS

Soil is d amaged considerably w henever it is

turn ed over. The moldboard p low brings sub-

soil to the surface and buries the crop residue

layer so deep it is unable to decay prop erly. Vir-

tually no soil residue is left on the surface, ex-

posing the soil to erosion and impairing the w a-

ter and m ineral cycles. Today, millions of acres

are being farmed withou t any tillage at all (no-

till) or in such a w ay that ad equate grou nd cover

remains afterwards (ridge till, zone till, mini-

mu m till). Prod uction systems that reduce oreliminate tillage in a manner consistent with ef-

fective weed control foster the four ecosystem

processes discussed above. Read about an inno-

vative no-till system that uses ann ual cover crops

in the Examp les of Successful Tran sitions sec-

tion. For more information, request the two

ATTRA publications Conservation Tillage an d

Pursuing Conservation Tillage for Organic Crop Pro-

duction.

APPLYINGTHEPRINCIPLES

When beginning the transition, the big

question is how to ap ply the p rinciples of

economic p rofitability, social enhancement,

and ecological imp rovem ent in the field, in

the community, and in the financial pro-cess. The decisions we make on our farms

and the tools and p ractices we choose will

determ ine the extent to which sustainability

is realized . The ultimate goal is to farm in

such a w ay that w e extract our living as the

interest, while preserving the social, water,

and soil capital. We want to ensure that our

activities do n ot comprom ise the land scape

and community resources over the long

term. Now let's look at some management

concepts aimed at fostering the four ecosystemprocesses discussed earlier.

STRIVETOKEEPTHESOILCOVEREDTHROUGHOUTTHEYEAR

Under natural conditions the soil remains

covered with a skin of d ead p lant material, which

moderates temperature extremes, increases wa-

ter penetration and storage, and enhances soil

aeration. Most imp ortantly, the soil skin main-

tains soil structure and preven ts erosion by soft-

ening the imp act of falling raind rops. Bare

ground, on the other hand, is vulnerable to wa-

ter and wind erosion, dries out more quickly, and

loses organic matter rap idly.

The major prod uctivity costs associated w ith

soil erosion come from the replacement of lost

nu trients and red uced w ater holding ability, ac-

counting for 50 to 75% of productivity loss

(Pimentel et al., 1995). Soil remov ed by erosion

typically contains about th ree times more n utri-

ents than th e soil left behind and is 1.5 to 5 times

richer in organic matter (Pimentel et al., 1995).This organic matter loss not only results in re-

du ced water holding capacity and degraded soil

aggregation, but also loss of plant nutrients,

wh ich must then be rep laced w ith fertilizers. Five

tons of topsoil (the USDA "tolerance level" for

erosion) can easily contain 100 pounds of nitro-

gen, 60 pound s of phosphate, 45 pou nd s of pot-

ash, 2 pound s of calcium, 10 pound s of magne-

sium, and 8 pou nd s of sulfur. Table 3 shows the
http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/consertill.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/consertill.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/omconservtill.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/omconservtill.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/omconservtill.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/omconservtill.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/consertill.pdf



DIVERSIFY

Enterprise diversification reduces financial

risk by spreading income and costs (e.g., of pest

control and fertilizer) out over several crops or

livestock operat ions. Susta inability is increased

wh en animal wastes become inpu ts to crop p ro-

du ction on the same farm.

ROTATECROPS

Moving from simple monoculture to a higher

level of diversity begins with crop rotations,

which break weed and pest life cycles, provide

comp lementary fertilization to crops in sequence

with each othernitrogen-fixing legume crops

preceding grain crops such as cornand prevent

buildu p of pest insects and weeds. In many cases,

yield increases follow from the "rotation effect."Including forage crops in the rotation w ill redu ce

soil erosion and increase soil quality.

When p lanning crop rotations, it is important

to consider that cultivated row cropssuch as

corn and soybeans or vegetables tend to be soil-

degrad ing. Since the soil is open and cultivated

between rows, microbes break down organic

matter at a more rapid pace. Furtherm ore, row

crops have modest root systems and conse-

quently do not contribute enough new organicmatter to replace that lost from the open soil be-

tween rows; in most cases above-ground crop

residues make only minor contributions to replac-

ing lost organic matter.

Cereals and other crops (including annual

green manures) planted with a grain drill or

broadcast-seeded are more closely spaced and

have m ore extensive root systems than row crops,

greatly reducing the amount of soil exposed to

degrad ation. In ad dition, they receive little or

no cultivation after planting, wh ich red uces or-

ganic-matter loss even more. As a result, cereals

and green manures can be considered neutral

crops, replacing soil organic matter at roughly

the same rate at wh ich it breaks dow n. Crops

that make a peren nial sod coversuch as grasses,

clovers, and alfalfanot only keep the soil en-tirely covered, but also have massive root sys-

tems, produ cing far more organic matter than is

lost. Sod crops are the best soil-bu ilding crops

they can heal the damage done to soil by row

cropping.

Incorporating sod crops as a fundamental

part of a crop rotation not only builds soil but

sup ports weed -control strategies as well. Weed

control improves because the typ es of weed s en-

couraged by row-cropping systems are usually

not adapted to growing in a sod/ hay crop. Anideal rotation m ight include one year of sod crop

for each year of row crop, and as man y years of

"neutral" crops as makes sense in the circum-

stances.

The challenge of incorporating sod crops into

a rotation is to include livestock in the system or

to find a market for the hay. Sustainable pro-

du ction is much easier when livestock are present

in the system to recycle wastes and assist in trans-

ferring (via manure) nutrients from one part of

the farm to another. Fortunately, land capable of

producing a 100-bushel corn yield w ill genera llybe able to prod uce 5-ton hay yields. With prices

of $60$70 per ton being common for ord inary

hay, gross revenues per acre from hay will ex-

ceed those from corn so long as corn is under

$3.00 per bu shel. The net- income picture is even

more encouraging, however, because conven-

tional production costs for an acre of corn are

quite a bit higher than for hay. A good crop of

alfalfa fixes at least $50 wor th of n itrogen every

year, thu s redu cing fertilizer costs for the subse-

quent corn crop.

Besides equipm ent costs, the major d raw back

to selling hay is that the n utrients it contains are

shipp ed off the farm . Since, how ever, something

like 7590% of the minerals going into the front

end of cattle come out the back end, keeping

cattle helps retain nu trients on the farm. Cattle

can serve as a very profitable method of add ing

value to the forage crops they consume. ATTRA

offers an extensive series of pub lications on su s-

tainable beef prod uction and "grass farming."

Intercropping is the growing of

two or more crops in proximity

to promote interaction between

them. Read the ATTRA publica-

tions Intercropping Principles

and Production Practices and

Companion Planting for more

information.
http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/intercrop.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/intercrop.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/complant.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/complant.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/intercrop.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/intercrop.pdf



Comp ost has a unique ad vantage in comp arison

to unaged m anu re and other organic soil amend-

men ts in that it has a (usually) pred ictable, and

nearly ideal, ratio of carbon to nitrogen (Parnes,

1990). Compost can be safely ap plied at rates of

10 tons p er acre (Parnes, 1990) wh ere qu antities

are available. Much higher rates are not unu sual,

especially where soil is being improved ratherthan m aintained.

Comp ost has some par ticular ad vantages in

row crop production, especially when used in

conjunction with cover crops and green manures.

In sand y soils, comp ost's stable organ ic matter is

especially effective at absorbing and retaining

water. Fresh plant material incorporated as green

man ure, on the other h and , retains its waxy leaf

coating and cannot perform the same function

un til thorough ly digested by microbes.

There are severa l conventional fertilizers that

should be avoided in sustainable farming be-cause of their harmful effects on soil organisms

and structure. These includ e anhydrous amm o-

nia and potassium chloride. The use of dolo-

mitea liming material having a high magne-

sium-to-calcium ratiohas also been generally

discouraged, but most problems result from the

frequent misuse of dolomite for raising pH on

soils already high in magnesium, not from any

innate detr imen tal qualities. It is certainly ap-

propriate for use on fields deficient in magne-

sium, as indicated by a prop er soil test.

Some of the more "environ men tally friend ly"

chemical fertilizers such as mono-ammonium

ph osphate (12-50-0), comm only called MAP, may

also have a role in the transition aw ay from the

har sher chemical fertilizers. A very serviceable

and affordable 4-16-16 transitional fertilizer with

magnesium, sulfur, and other minor nutrients

can be prepared from a combination of two-

thirds su lfate of potash-magnesia and one-third

mono-amm onium phosph ate. When used in

combinat ion w ith composts and/ or legum e

plowdowns (for nitrogen), this 4-16-16 can beband ed at seeding or otherw ise app lied just like

the regular 5-20-20, but with reduced negative

imp act on soil life.

Significant additions of lime, rock p hosphate,

and other fertilizers should be gu ided by soil test-

ing to avoid soil imbalances and un necessary ex-

pend iture on inpu ts. Cooperative Extension of-

fers low-cost soil testing services in m any states.

Also refer to ATTRA's Alternative Soil Testing

Laboratories publication.

USECOVERCROPSANDGREENMANURES

Perennial and biennial sod crops, annual

green manures, and annual cover crops are im-

portan t for bu ilding soil in field-cropping sys-

tems. Hairy vetch, for examp le, not on ly is a soil-

conserving cover crop, but is capable of provid -

ing all the nitrogen requ ired by subsequen t cropslike tomatoes (Abdul-Baki an d Teasdale, 1994).

The soil-building crops m ost app ropriate for

a given farm depend not only on regional fac-

tors (harshness of winter, etc.) but also on the

type of p rodu ction system involved: each farmer

will have to determine which cover crops are

most app ropriate to his or her system. For more

information see the ATTRA publication Overview

ofCover Crops and Green Manures.

COMPOSTS, MANURES, AND

FERTILIZERS

Crop rotations, cover-cropping, and green-

manuring are key strategies for soil building,

wh ich is the found ation of sustainable farming.

However, modern production systems place

high demands on land resources, requiring ad-

ditional attention to soil fertility management.

ATTRA's Sustainable Soil Managementpublication

provid es practical information abou t alternativesoil man agemen t approaches. Since some of

these approaches entail the use of off-farm in-

pu ts, two add itional ATTRA pu blications,Alter-

native Soil Amendmentsand Sources of Organic Fer-

tilizers & Amendments, are also recommended.

Manu res and composts, especially those p ro-

duced on-farm or available locally at low cost,

are ideal resources for cycling nu trients on-farm.

From the standpoint of overall soil and crop

health, composts or aged man ures are preferred.

Grazing animals and other livestock can be man-aged on croplands to reduce costs, increase income, andincrease diversity. There are ways of incorporating ani-mals into cropping without the farmer getting into animalhusbandry or ownership directly. Collaboration withneighbors who own animals will benefit both croppersand livestock owners. Grazing or hogging-off of cornresidue is one example where a cost can be turned into

a profit. The animals replace the $6 per-acre stalk mow-ing cost and produce income in animal gains.
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/covercrop.pdfhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/soilmgt.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/soilmgt.pdfhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/altsoil.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/altsoil.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/altsoil.pdfhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/organicfert.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/organicfert.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/organicfert.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/organicfert.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/organicfert.pdf%7C%7Chttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/altsoil.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/altsoil.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/soilmgt.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/covercrop.pdfhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7Chttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf%7C%7C



WEEDMANAGEMENT

Weed m anagement poses one of the greatest

challenges to th e crafting of sustainable prod uc-

tion systems. How ever, weed p opu lations tend

to decline in severity as soil health bu ilds. A ba-

sic understanding of weed ecology and the in-fluence of cropping pa tterns on weed comm un i-

ties will help grow ers refine their u se of cultura l

and mechanical techniques, thereby redu cing the

time required for effective weed control.

Prevention of weed p roblems is a fun dam en-

tal component of man-

agemen t . In general

terms, weed preven tion

in crops is based on de-

veloping a sound rota-

tion, thwarting all at-

t empts by ex i s t ingweeds to set seed, and

minimizing the arrival

of new w eed seeds from

outside the field. In a

grazing system, weed

management m ay be as

simple as adding other

animal species such as

goats or sheep to a cattle herd to convert w eeds

into cash.

Certain crops can be used to smother w eeds.Short-du ration plantings of buckwh eat and sor-

ghum-sudangrass, for example, smother weeds

by growing faster and out-comp eting them. In

northern states, oats are comm only planted as a

"nu rse crop" for alfalfa, clover, and legum e-grass

mixturesthe oats simply take the place of

weeds that w ould otherwise grow between the

young alfalfa p lants.

With enough mu lch, weed n um bers can be

greatly redu ced. Nebra ska scientists app lied

wh eat straw in early spring to a field w here wheat

had been harvested the previous Augu st. At thehigher straw rates, weed levels were reduced

more than three times over (see Figure 3). Wheat,

like rye, is also know n to possess weed -supp ress-

ing chemicals in the straw itself. This qu ality is

know n as allelopathy.

Rye is one of the most useful allelopathic

cover crops because it is winter-hardy and can

be grown almost anywhere. Rye residue contains

generous amounts of allelopathic chemicals.

When rye is killed in place and left un disturbed

on the soil sur face, these chemicals leach ou t andprevent germination of small-seeded weeds.

Weed suppression is effective for about 3060

days (Daar, 1986). If the rye is tilled into th e soil,

the effect is lost.

Table 4 shows the effects of several cereal

cover crops on weed prod uction. Note that till-

age alone, in the absence of any cover crop , more

than dou bled the nu mber of weeds.

While a good weed-prevention program w ill

decrease weed pressure substantially, success-

ful crop production still requires a well-con-

ceived p rogram for controlling weed s to the pointwhere they have no negative impact on net in-

come. Weed control programs include a range

of carefully timed interventions designed to kill

as many young seedlings as possible. ATTRA

has ad ditional information on w eed control op-

tions for both agronomic and horticultural crops,

available on request, includ ing the pu blication

Principles of Sustainable Weed Management for Crop-

lands.

Figure 4. Effect of straw mulch on weeds at twolocations in Nebraska. Source: Crutchfield et al.,1985.

Weed Levels at two Nebraska

Locations

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3

Mulch rate - tons/acre

W

eednumbers/acre Sidney

North Platte

Weed weight

Tillage Cover crop Weeds/foot2 pounds/foot2

Conventional None 12 0.22None None 5 0.14

None Rye 0.9 0.1

None Wheat 0.3 0.07

None Barley 0.8 0.09

_____________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Tillage and Cover Crop Mulch Effect on

Weed Numbers and Production

Table 4.

Source: Schertz et al., 1984
http:///www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/weed.pdfhttp:///www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/weed.pdfhttp:///www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/weed.pdfhttp:///www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/weed.pdf



"Farmscaping" refers to practices that

increase diversity on the farm by pro-

viding habitat for beneficial organisms.

Borders, windbreaks, and special

plantings for natural enemies of pests

serve this purpose. Request the

ATTRA publication Farmscaping to

Enhance Biological Control for more

information.

INSECTPESTMANAGEMENT

Insect pests can have a serious impact on

farm income. In ecologically balanced farm p ro-

du ction systems, insect p ests are always p resent,

but massive outbreaks resulting in severe eco-

nomic damage are minimized. This results in

good part from the presence of natural controlagentsespecially predatory and parasitic in-

sects, mites, and spidersthat keep pest pop u-

lations in check. To restore popu lations of

beneficials on the farm, cease or redu ce pesticide

use and oth er practices that harm them , and es-

tablish habitats through farmscaping.

In diverse farm systems, severe pest out-

breaks are r are because natu ral controls exist toautomatically bring populations back into bal-

ance. There is overwhelming eviden ce that plant

mixtures (intercrops) sup port lower nu mbers of

pests than pure stands (Altieri and Liebman,

1994). There are two schools of thou ght on w hy

this occurs. One suggests that higher natural-

enemy populations persist in diverse mixtures

because they provide more continuous food

sources (nectar, pollen, and prey) and habitat.

The other thou ght is that p est insects wh o feed

on only one type of plant have greater opp ortu-

nity to feed, move around , and breed in pure crop

stands because their resources are more concen-

trated than they would be in a crop mixture

(Altieri and Liebman, 1994).

Intercropping also aids pest control efforts

by red ucing th e ability of the pest insects to rec-

ognize their host plants. For examp le, thrips and

white flies are attracted to green plants with a

brown (soil) background , and ignore areas where

vegetat ive cover is completeincluding

mulched soil (Ecological Agricultu re Projects, No

da te). Some intercrops thu s disguise the host

plant from these pests by completely covering

the soil. Other insects recognize their host plant

by smell; onions planted with carrots mask the

smell of carrots from carrot flies. For more infor-

mation on companion planting for insect man-

agement see the ATTRA publ ica t ions

Farmscaping to Enhance Biological Controland Com-panion Planting.

Sooner or later, nearly every grower con-

fronts unacceptable pest pressure, making som e

kind of intervention necessary. Integrated pest

man agement (IPM) is the basic framework used

to decide when and how pests are controlled.

The primary goal of IPM is to give growers man -

agement guidelines in order to make pest con-

trol as economically and ecologically sound as

possible.

IPM integrates habitat modification and cul-

tural, physical, biological, and chemical practicesto minimize crop losses. Monitoring, record

keeping, and life-cycle information about pests

and th eir natu ral enemies are used to determine

wh ich control measures are needed to keep p ests

below an economically damaging threshold. For

more detailied information on IPM, see the

ATTRA publication Biointensive Integrated Pest

Management.

Biological controlthe use of living organ-

isms to control crop pests is one of the pillars

of IPM. Biocontrol agents ma y be preda tory,

parasitic, or pathogenic; they m ay also be either

"natural" (from naturally occurring organisms

such as wild beneficial insects) or "applied"

(meaning the o rgan i sms are in t roduced) .

Biocontrol agents include insects, mites, bacte-

ria, fungi, viruses, and nematodes. Certain ben-

eficial nematodes (Steinernema species, for ex-

ample) transmit pathogens to their prey and

could be seen as a form of indirectly applied

biocontrol.

A working knowledge of the life cycles of

pests and their natural enemies enables the

grower to identify and exploit the weak link in a

pest's life cycle. Several good books and publi-

cations on insect identification are available

through Cooperative Extension; more can be

found in libraries and bookstores.
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/farmscaping.pdfhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/farmscaping.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/complant.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/complant.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/ipm.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/ipm.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/ipm.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/ipm.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/complant.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/complant.pdfhttp://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/farmscaping.pdf



When all other IPM tactics are unable to

maintain insect pest pop ulations below economic

thresh olds, insecticide app lication to control the

pests and prevent economic loss is clearly justi-

fied. In such cases, farmer s concerned w ith

sustainability will usually attemp t to obtain sat-

isfactory control using one of the "biorational"

pesticides, which are fairly pest-specific and u su-

ally non-persistent, causing a minimal amountof harm to beneficial organisms. Biorational pes-

ticides includ e some conventional synth etic pest

control materials, but more typically are micro-

bial insecticides like Bacillus thuringiensis or

Beauveria bassiana; insecticidal soaps; ph eromones

(for trapping or mating disruption), and insect

growth regulators. Botanical plant extracts like

neem and ryania are also known as least-toxic,

narrow-spectrum controls, combining minimal

negative impact on beneficial species with very

rapid decomposition in the environment.

Farms exploring IPM concepts for the first

time may limit their involvement to m onitoring

levels of one or two p ests on a second ary crop,

applying their usual insecticide if the threshold

of economic injury is approached. Others may

shift from a broad -spectrum insecticide to a more

beneficial-friend ly material. As operator com-

fort with IPM increases, it is common to apply

basic concepts to the primary crop and expand

IPM management on the secondary cropper-

hap s through the introdu ction of beneficial para-

sites or p redators of the target p est insect.

As they move tow ard s greater sustainability,

IPM programs tend to go through three phases,

with each stage using and building on previous

knowledge and techniques (Ferro, 1993):

a)The pesticide management phase, char -

acterized by establishing economic

thresholds, samp ling, and spraying as

needed.

b)The cultural management phase, based

on a thorough und erstanding of the pest's

biology and its relationship to the crop-

ping system. Tactics emp loyed to con-

trol pests includ e delayed p lanting dates,

crop rotation, altered harvest da tes, etc.

c)The biolog ical control phase, or "bio-in-

tensive IPM," requires thorough un der-

standing of the biology of natural en-emies (in ad dition to that of the pest) and

an ability to measu re how effective these

agents are in controlling pests. When

natu ral agents do not m eet expected

goals, the IPM practitioner u ses "soft" pes-

ticides (relatively non -toxic to nontarget

organisms), and times app lications for

minimal impact on beneficials.

PLANTDISEASEMANAGEMENT

The first step tow ard preventing serious dis-

ease problems in any cropping system is the pro-

duct ion o f hea l thy p lan t s nur tu red by a

microbially active soil. Healthy soil sup presses

root diseases naturally; the primary means to

create disease-sup pressive soil is to add biologi-

cally active comp ost at ap prop riate rates to a soil

with balanced mineral levels. Sup plemental

strategies include crop rotation, resistant culti-

vars, good soil drainage, adequate air movement,

and planting clean seed.Biorational fungicides include compost teas

(which ad d beneficial fungi capable of prevent-

ing colonization of the crop by pathogens), bak-

ing soda, and p lant extracts. As with insect pest

control , in tegrated management principles

should be applied, including monitoring of en-

vironmental conditions to determine whether

preventive fun gicidal sprays are required. For

more informa tion on how healthy soil fosters a

drastic reduction in root diseases, request the

ATTRA publication Sustainable Management of

Soil-borne Plant Diseases.

EXAMPLESOFSUCCESSFUL

TRANSITIONS

STEVE GROFFOF PENNSYLVANIA

Steve Groff and his family produce veg-

etables, alfalfa, and grain crops p rofitably on 175

Farmers need to consider carefully how to

manage the shift to fewer pesticides during

the first few years, before beneficial insect

populations have rebuilt to levels where they

can exert significant control of the major

pests. Farmers should plan to work closely

with local expertsespecially farmers with

transition experienceto ensure as smooth

a shift as possible.
http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/soilborne.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/soilborne.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/soilborne.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/soilborne.pdfhttp://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/soilborne.pdf



acres in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

When Steve took over operation of the family

farm 15 years ago, his nu mber-one concern w as

eliminating soil erosion (improving the water

cycle). Consequently, he began u sing cover crops

extensively (improving the water and mineral

cycle and increasing commu nity dyn amics).

Steve uses a 10-foot Buffalo rolling stalk

chopper to tran sform a green cover crop into ano-till mu lch. Und er the hitch-mou nted frame,

the stalk chopp er has tw o sets of rollers run ning

in tandem. These rollers can be adjusted for light

or aggressive action and set for continuou s cov-

erage. Steve says the machine can be run u p to 8

miles an hour and does a good job of killing the

cover crop and pu shing it right d own on the soil.

It can also be used to flatten down other crop

residu es after harvest. Groff imp roved h is chop-

per by add ing ind epend ent linkages and sp rings

to each roller. This mod ification makes each unit

more flexible, to allow continu ous u se over u n-

even terrain. Following his chop per, Groff trans-

plan ts vegetable seedlings or plants no-till sweet

corn and snap bean s into the killed m ulch. Un-

der the cover-crop mulch system, his soils are

protected from erosion and have become mu ch

mellower (as a result of the improved water

cycle). For more information, order Steve's video

listed in the Resources section below or visit his

Web page, , where you can see ph otos of

the cover-crop roller an d no-till transplanter inaction, as well as test-plot resu lts comp aring flail

mowing, rolling, and herbicide killing of cover

crops.

DICKANDSHARON THOMPSONOF IOWA

Dick and Sharon a re well known in the su s-

tainable agriculture comm un ity for an integrated

family farm system th at has broad implications

for the larger agricultural commu nity. Their sys-

tem is based not on expansion but on mainte-nan ce of local comm un ity values. Excerpts from

a Wallace Institute report describe the social

sustainability of their farming op eration. In Dick

Thomp son's own w ords:

The size of a farm will be restricted when

the major part of weed control depends on the

rotary hoe and the cultivator. Two cultivations

of the 150 acres of row crops with a four-row

cultivator are enough along with hay making

and caring for the livestock. An eight-row culti-

vator will han d le 300 to 400 acres very easy , bu t

not thousands of acres. Harvesting ear corn

pu ts another restraint on farm size. Picking 100

acres in the ear is enough. Mowing and baling

40 acres of hay three or four times during the

summer is enough. Looking after 75 beef cows

du ring calving is enou gh. There is no desire to

have 150 cows. Including the cow in the farm

operation keeps the farm and communities inbalance. When th e cow leaves the farm, the oats

and hay crops leave also. The rem ainder is row

crop corn and soybeans without man ure for fer-

tility which calls for purchased fertilizer and h er-

bicides to control the weeds. As a result, farms

can get larger and the ru ral commu nities decline.

Cleaning p ens every tw o w eeks for a 75-sow far-

row to finish hog operation is enough. This 300-

acre farm with livestock is enough and there is

no d esire to farm the neighbor's land. The higher

labor charges stay in th e farmer's pocket making

smaller farms p rofitable, and therefore results in

more farm families. More farm families mean

expansion of schools, churches, services and

comm un ities. (Thomp son, 1997)

THEMOOREFAMILYOF TEXAS

For several generations the Moore family

raised corn , milo, and cotton (Leake, 2001). Hav-

ing had enough of rising prod uction costs, per-

sistent drought, and low commod ity prices, theydecided to break th e family trad ition and switch

from row crop s to cattle. After receiving train-

ing in H olistic Managem ent, Robert Moore an d

his son Taylor d esigned a system that gives them

less personal stress and lower overhead costs.

For years they battled Johnson grass, bermuda

grass, and crab grass in their cotton fields. Now

these grasses and oth ers such as Dallis grass and

bluestem are their allies. Moore says they are

working with nature by letting the plants that

want to be there return. Their cattle love the

grasses and the wide variety allows them to grazefrom mid-February to mid -November. After giv-

ing up cropping, they increased their cow herd

from 200 an ima ls to 600. Their 2000 acres are

divided into 50-acre paddocks, with about 200

head in each pad dock at various times. With

their cropp ing enterprise they had 20 emp loyees

working full time; now the father and son work

together with one full-time emp loyee. Before

cattle, they worried abou t crop success and prices

and were often relieved just to break even. Now
http://www.cedarmeadowfarm.%20com/about.htmlhttp://www.cedarmeadowfarm.%20com/about.htmlhttp://www.cedarmeadowfarm.%20com/about.htmlhttp://www.cedarmeadowfarm.%20com/about.htmlhttp://www.cedarmeadowfarm.%20com/about.html



they can live off wh at they make. Taylor says,

"We're definitely happier now and have less

stress." ATTRA has more than a dozen farmer-

ready publications that provide details about

grass farming enterprises and alternative mar-

keting of animal p rodu cts.

SUMMARY

Sustainable farming meets economic, envi-

ronm ental, and social objectives simultan eously;

because these three objectives always overlap,

they are ma naged together . Economic

sustainability requ ires selecting p rofitable enter-

prises and doing comp rehensive financial plan-

ning. Social susta inability involves keep ing

money circulating in the local economy, and

maintaining or enhancing the quality of life of

the farm family. Environmental sustainabilityinvolves keeping the four ecosystem p rocesses

(effective energy flow, wa ter and mineral cycles,

and viable ecosystem d ynam ics) in good condi-

tion. Managing economics, society, and environ-

ment simultaneously dep ends on clear goal-set-

ting, effective decision making, and monitoring

to stay on track toward the goal. Wise decisions

allow us to extract our living from the land as

the interest, wh ile p reserving the social, water,

and soil capital. As a result, the capability of the

landscape and commu nity resources will not be

comprom ised over time by ou r activities.Some specific land-use strategies to achieve

sustainability include: keeping the soil covered

through out the year; avoiding moldboard p low-

ing; increasing biodiversity wherever possible

throug h crop rotation, intercropping, u se of sod

or cover crops, farmscaping, and integrated pest

man agement; applying animal manu res or com-

post; diversifying enterprises and planning for

profit; integrating crop and animal enterp rises;

minimizing tillage, commercial fertilizer, and

pesticides; buying supplies locally; employinglocal peop le; and includ ing qu ality of life in your

goals.

REFERENCES

Abd ul-Baki, Aref A. and John R. Teasdale.

1994. Hairy vetch cover crop provides all

the N required by tomato crop (abstract).

American Society of H orticultural Science

Annu al Meeting, Oregon State University,

Corvallis.

Altieri, M.A. and M. Liebman. 1994. Insect,

weed, and plant disease management in

multiple cropp ing systems. In: C.A.

Francis (ed.) Mu ltiple Crop ping Systems.

Macmillan Comp any, New York. 383 p.

Anon . 1990. Strip intercropp ing offers low-input way to boost yields. Sensible

Agricultu re. May. p. 7-8.

Bur leson, Wayne and Con nie Bur leson. 1994.

Rut Buster: A Visual Goa l Setting Book.

Sloping Acre Publishing Compan y.

Absarokee, Montana . 45 p.

Cru tchfield, Don ald A., Gail A. Wicks, and

Orvin C. Burnsid e. 1986. Effect of winter

wh eat (Triticum aestivum ) straw mu lch

level on weed con trol. Weed Science.

Vol. 34, No. 1. p. 110-114.

Daar, Sheila. 1986. Update: Suppressing

weed s with allelopathic mulches. The

IPM Practitioner. April. p. 1-4.

Ecological Agricultu re Projects. No d ate.

Mixing Crop Species. McGill University,

Macdonald Campu s. .

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Work-

ing Group. 2001 (rev.). Stream Corridor

Restoration, Principles, Processes andPractices. Chap ter 2. Stream Corridor

Processes and Characteristics. p. 2-3.

.

Ferro, D.N. 1993. Integrated pest management

in vegetables in Massachu setts. p. 95-105.

In: Ann e R. Leslie and Gerrit W. Cup erus

(eds.) Successful Imp lementation of

Integrated Pest Managem ent for Agricul-

tu ral Crops. Lewis Publishers, Boca

Raton, Florida .Horn e, J.E. and Maura McDermott. No da te.

72 Ways to Make Agriculture Sustainable.

Kerr Center Fact Sheet. 2 p.

Hu dson , Berman. 1994. Soil organ ic matter an d

available w ater cap acity. Journal of Soil

and Water Con servation. Vol. 49, No. 2. p.

189-194.
http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/CSI_2.htmhttp://www.eap.mcgill.ca/CSI_2.htmhttp://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/newtofc.htmhttp://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/newtofc.htmhttp://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/newtofc.htmhttp://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/newtofc.htmhttp://www.eap.mcgill.ca/CSI_2.htmhttp://www.eap.mcgill.ca/CSI_2.htm


16/16

The electronic version of Applying the

Principles of Sustainable Farming islocated at:HTML

http://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/trans.htmlPDF

http://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/Transition.pdf

By Preston Sullivan

NCAT Agriculture Specialist

Edited by Richard Earles

Formatted by Ashley Hi ll

March 2003

Amish farms to thrive in today's economy. The

Stockman Grass Farmer. June. p. 1-4.

Parnes, Robert. 1990. Fertile Soil. agAccess,

Davis, Californ ia. p. 51-58.

Pimen tel, D., C. Harv ey, P. Resosudarm o, et al.

1995. Environm ental and economic costs

of soil erosion and conservation benefits.

Science. Vol. 267, No. 5201. p . 1117-1123.

Putnam, Alan R., Joseph DeFrank an d Jane P.

Barnes. 1983. Exploitation of allelopathy

for weed control in annu al and peren nial

cropping systems. Journ al of Chemical

Ecology . Vol. 9, No. 8. p . 1001-1010.

Salatin, Joel. 1998. You Can Farm. Polyface,

Inc., Swoope, Virginia. 480 p.

Savory, Allan, w ith Jody Butter field. 1999.

Holistic Managem ent. Island Press.

Washington, D.C. 616 p.Schertz, D.L., W.C. Molden haver, D.P.

Franzmeier, et al. 1984. Field evaluation

of the effect of soil erosion on crop p ro-

ductivity. p. 9-17. In: Erosion and Soil

Produ ctivity. Proceedings of the National

Symp osium on Erosion and Soil Produ c-

tivity. American Society of Agricultu ral

Engineers. December 10-11, 1984. New

Orleans, Louisiana. ASAE Publication 8-

85.

Sullivan, P.G. 1999. Early Warning Monitoringfor Crop land s. Savory Center for Holistic

Management. 22 p.

Thomp son, Dick. 1997. Alterna tives in Agr icul-

tu re: 1996 Repor t. Thom pson On-Farm

Research and the Wallace Institute. p . 3-4.

Troeh, F.R., J.A. Hobbs, R.L. Donahue et al.

1991. Soil and Water Conservation.

Pren tice- Hall, Englew ood Cliffs, NJ.

RESOURCES

No-till Vegetables by Steve Groff. 1997.

This video leads you through selection of the

proper cover-crop mix to plant crops into and shows

you how to take out the cover crops with little or no

herbicide. You will see Groff's mechanical cover-crop-

kill method, which creates ideal no-till mulch without

herbicides. Vegetables are planted right into this

mulch using a no-till transplanter. The Groffs grow

high-quality tomatoes, pumpkins, broccoli, snap beans,

and sweet corn. A fter several years of no-till produc-

tion their soils are very mellow and easy to plant in to.

The video also includes comments from leading re-

searchers working with no-till vegetables.

Ord er for $21.95 + $3.00 shipp ing from :

Cedar Meadow Farm

679 Hilldale Road

Holtw ood , PA 17532

717-284-5152

Rutbuster: A Visual Goal Setting Book

Wayne an d Connie Burlson

RR 1, Box 2780

Absarokee, MT 59001

406-328-6808

IP 107
http://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/trans.htmlhttp://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/Transition.pdfhttp://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/Transition.pdfhttp://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/Transition.pdfhttp://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/Transition.pdfhttp://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/trans.html

Documents

Gardening) Applying the Principles of Sustainable Farming