Meristem: Wheat Science

Throw the 'bullets,' 'big hammers' and other quick fixes out the door, says Dr. George Clayton. Canadian agriculture needs smart, sophisticated management systems to succeed and be sustainable.

When it comes to farming, Dr. George Clayton is not a big believer in quick or dramatic fixes.

"There are a lot of guys who use the bullets or big hammers to farm. There are other people who I believe are further ahead - ones who take a more complex, knowledge-based approach. There aren't many people thinking this way and we need more."

By knowledge-based, Clayton, is referring to an approach to farming known as Integrated Crop Management (ICM). ICM has been around for a long time, and is often associated with the terms "holistic agriculture" or "alternate agriculture." In recent years, its status has risen greatly in the scientific community and in a growing number of public and industry circles. Many see ICM as an important antidote to the pitfalls of large-scale, input-intensive, diversity-poor modern farming that will be crucial to the future of sustainable crop production.

"We've gotten our priorities mixed up in modern agriculture," says Clayton, an ICM researcher at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Lacombe Research Centre. "We see a problem and we immediately look for the easiest short-term solution. If we look at the bigger picture and think about how we can be productive, cost-efficient and environmentally sustainable over the long-term, we would manage our production much differently. That's what ICM is about - taking a more sophisticated, broader look at things, in order to make better choices for the future success of our industry."

That is the core message Clayton took to producers and industry as a featured speaker at the Farm Tech Trade Show in Edmonton, Jan. 28-30. In the following interview, he offers other thoughts and observations on ICM, for Meristem Land and Science.

Q: The concept of ICM has been around for a long time. Now all of a sudden it's being championed as an innovative approach to improve modern farming. Why the renewed interest?

A: ICM is really about holistic management or alternate agriculture. Versions of this have been around for more than a century, so in that sense there's not much new with the concept. But today, ICM is more important than ever as an approach to help agriculture deal with some of its major problems and get back on track. We've made tremendous leaps in our understanding of farming as a biological system, and applying the ICM approach is the best way to translate that knowledge into more productive and sustainable farming systems. Today, when I talk ICM, I always talk about crop health - to me, that's the anchor for this concept.

We used to practice ICM in the early 1900s. Back then farms were smaller and they included more mixed farming. Crop rotation and diversity were important and pesticides were not even in the picture. But things are different now. We still have some mixed farming, but the operations are much bigger. Producers have turned their focus off ICM to quick fix solutions, such as heavy reliance on pesticides. We've had a generation or two of farmers who have become dependent on these quick fixes. We need to get back to the way people used to farm, but incorporate the tools that are available in a judicious mix between knowledge-based and chemical-based activities.

We've simplified our cropping system and that's caused other problems. For example, after 30 years of monoculture mentality, weed resistance has become a major issue. If we want to be sustainable, we need to look at a knowledge-based system.

Q: What are some of the changes producers could incorporate into their systems to take advantage of an ICM approach?

A: For one, we've become quite dependent on fertilizers. Even in the brown-soil zone around Swift Current, they have to put fertilizer on fallow. We've basically drained the soil. We've gone to so much tillage in the last 50 to 100 years that we've taken the micro-organisms out of the soil and it is generally not living anymore. These micro-organisms are tremendous utility tools that create organic matter, which cycles the nutrients to bind soil and hold water. We've forgotten about the biological properties that have helped agriculture for so long.

Obviously the advent of the air seeder, sweep seeding and one pass or two pass seeding has improved the soil over the last 10 years, but there's still room for improvement. When I say we need to become more knowledge-based, in practical terms this typically means we need to become less dependent on inputs and do more things biologically. It's not only about nutrient cycling and nutrient management, it's about disease control and a number of other important factors. Diseases and weeds became a problem as soon as we simplified everything. When you create a niche for something it survives and expands.

If you can get a diverse cropping system and diversity in the micro-organisms in your soil, we might not stop disease, but we could reduce the number of these extreme events where we get wiped out by disease. We're just trying to level off that field a bit so we don't get the highs and the lows.

Crop rotations, variety rotations, seeding dates and methods - these are just some of the many other management tools producers have that would benefit from a closer look.

The bottom line is that sustainability isn't possible unless you diversify your system to make it more complex. This is more than just cropping diversity. The other thing producers can do is increase operational diversity, where they change the window of when things get done, such as changing from a summer crop to a winter crop or changing cutting management. Operational diversity can have tremendous impact on ICM in terms of sustainability and helping reduce input costs.

Another way to diversify is to actually intercrop, which means to plant two different species, or the same species with different genetic background, in the same field in the same year. This all contributes to ICM and reduces threats to the system, so you're not always out there trying to buy the big hammer, such as a broad spectrum pesticide, to control the problem.

When you rely heavily on pesticides as your management tool, you're asking the question, 'What is there and how am I going to control it?' The better question is, 'Why is it there?' When you start asking why, you can start incorporating things like genetic diversity, species diversity and operational diversity to combat some of the problems.

Q: You speak with a lot of producers across Alberta and beyond. How would you describe current attitudes towards ICM?

A: I think there is a real range of thought out there. There aren't many producers practising ICM in a strict sense, but we're seeing growing interest in a more knowledge-based approach.

There are many factors driving this interest. In Western Canada, producers face declining crop prices, increased input costs, consumer concerns about the environmental and health effects of pesticides, increasing incidences of weeds becoming resistant to herbicides and increased incidence of plant diseases. Also, there has been a re-examination of agronomic practices due to conservation farming.

At the Lacombe Research Centre, we are part of a team developing an ICM strategy for Alberta, which is a multi-organizational, multi-disciplinary approach that looks at how to make an impact in the ICM area. Our goal is to have something in place at the end of the year or early next year. There is another group developing a plan to move that knowledge forward. An important question we researchers must ask is, 'how do we get this information out to producers and how do we get them to adopt these practices?' Clearly, getting the message out will be a major priority in the coming months and years.

Q: What do you see as the major driver towards ICM approaches being adopted by more producers?

A: When it comes down to it, it is about economics. Inputs on farms are just getting more expensive all the time, so we need to look at cost savings. We know that increasing seeding rates is a tremendous tool. It is a good form of biocontrol and it can cut out herbicide applications for weeds in a lot of situations. But people need to understand how to do that.

If you use a multi-tool approach to attack a problem, you've got a greater chance of success than if you use only one tool. The warning is, if you use a multi-tool approach and you use the same multi-tools every year, you will develop another niche for problems. The key is to always diversify - always keep things off balance.

A: I'm not going to say we're miles ahead of anybody, but we're in the game. Other countries such as Poland, Germany, France and Australia want to incorporate an ICM plan, but they are experiencing challenges similar to Canada.

I think our weakness is we don't have a big overall strategy and focus on where we need to go. I am hopeful that with the ICM strategy we're developing we'll be able to achieve that focus.

Q: How has the organic movement and low-input agriculture influenced the way we look at ICM?

A: I think there is a lot to be learned from successful organic and low-input producers. I'm not sure that type of farming is for everyone, but they have a lot to contribute towards the adoption of ICM. Those producers must be using ICM in order to run their operations. The bullet tools commonly used by other farmers have been taken away. I always try to go to organic meetings to learn as much as I can from organic producers because they have a lot to offer.

Reprintable with permission. Reproduction of this article - in whole or in part, in print or electronic - requires direct permission from Meristem Information Resources, Ltd. Contact Meristem directly to request reprint permission.

Archives

Raising the bar on crop management