Once again, Jim Gerrish, owner American GrazingLands, pens a thorough and relevant article. This one published in The Stockman GrassFarmer June , 2020 issue. Click here if you’d like to request a free copy of The Stockman GrassFarmer.
A Perfect Match
Some things just seem to fit together really well. Bacon-lettuce-tomato sandwiches come to mind, among other things.
How about no-till, cover-crops, irrigation, and MiG? That is another combination that is hard to beat.
Industrial farming with conventional tillage has led to widespread land degradation through soil erosion, loss of soil carbon, and destruction of soil life. No-till minimizes soil disturbance and the concurrent loss of organic matter soil life. The downside of no-till farming over the 50 or so years since its inception has been heavy reliance on potent herbicides like paraquat and glyphosate. To eliminate the need for those herbicides and their toxic side effects, innovative farmers have figured out approaches. The roller-crimper as a mechanical tool can terminate existing vegetation and turn it into moisture-conserving mulch. High stock density grazing can also terminate or suppress existing vegetation and turn it into dollars.
The exponential growth in cover-crop use over the last decade has also accelerated the adoption of no-till farming across the USA and around the world. While many farmers started using cover-crops based solely on soil health benefits, others came to realize livestock were the missing link in their efforts to heal the land. We quite talking about sustainable ag a few years ago and started talking about regenerative ag. Why settle for sustaining the agricultural wreck we have created over the last century? Why don’t we try fixing it instead?
Ray Archuleta uses a great example to illustrate the difference between the sustainable and regenerative concepts. ray asks, “If your marriage is a wreck, why would you want to sustain that? If your farm is a wreck, why would you want to sustain that?”
Regeneration is meant to create something healthy and strong that will last your lifetime and beyond. I think it is a valuable lesson in world selection and world viewpoint.
In a similar vein, many years ago I said the most tragic divorce that has happened down on the farm was the divorce of livestock from the land. Taking grazing animals off the landscape and locking them up in concentration camps removed a critical component of ecosystem health. We will only regenerate a healthy landscapes with effectively managed livestock as part of the process.
We can argue about the sustainability of irrigation. Around the world, including the USA, aquifers are being pumped to the point of depletion. Land is being degraded due to salinization from irrigating with high salt content water. Pumping costs are increasing in many irrigated farming areas as water is pumped from deeper and deeper wells. No, irrigation in that sense is neither sustainable nor regenerative.
Living in the Intermountain Region of the USA for 16 years now and enjoying a different type of irrigation basis. I think there is a time and place for irrigation in a regenerative ranching or farming context. With direct snow-melt as our water source we avoid aquifer depletion and most of the salinity risks associated with irrigation in semi-arid landscapes.
For many years, a lot of this region was flood irrigated. There are a number of benefits to flood irrigation. Flood irrigation can rely entirely on gravity flow of water so there is no pumping cost. It can hydrate parts of the landscape outside of the farmed fields. The infrastructure investment is fairly low. However, Water use efficiency cannot be counted as one of the favorable aspects of flood irrigation.
Per ton of forage grown, flood irrigation typically uses about 50-80% more water than sprinkler irrigation. As we think more and more about the pending worldwide water crisis, all of us in agriculture must become better versed in water conservation whether we are in high natural rainfall or irrigated environments. That brings us back to thought of no-till farming with cover-crops and the role of grazing animals in groundwater management.
We have all heard and read those popular press articles citing how many pounds of water it takes to produce a pound of hamburger or a steak. Some beef industry estimates are as low as 1000 lbs of water per lb of beef all the way up to 12,000 lbs of water/lb of beef claimed by some vegan groups. Since a pound of beef only contains about 10 ounces of water, the rest of all that water has to be somewhere else. That somewhere else is mostly in the soil or the atmosphere meaning that same water will be used for something else tomorrow or the next day or the next.
Our job is to get as much back into the soil or the deeper ground water system. This is where MiG comes into the picture. We use time-controlled grazing management to manipulate the amount of living plant residual and the amount of trampled litter we create in the pasture. Both of those grazing management responses are critically important factors in managing soil water. Infiltration rate and surface runoff are directly tied to our day-to-day grazing management choices.
When we can easily produce twice as much animal product per acre using MiG compared to ineffectively managed pastures, that translates to a doubled water use efficiency. Think about the cost of seeding cover-crops on irrigated land and the relative return on investment between those two different management scenarios. Regardless of the particular pasture in question. MiG always increases the return potential.
Jim Gerrish is an independent grazing lands consultant providing service to farmers and ranchers on both private and public lands across the USA and internationally. He can be contacted through www.americangrazinglands.com. His books are available from the SGF Bookshelf page 20.