Relative Articles

Summarized by D.F. Miles

Working Farms for Wildlife

Minnesota Conservation Volunteer Magazine

 Written by Brian DeVore

This short piece is the account of dairy farmer Martin Jaus and his miraculous farm. Throughout the years Jaus and his wife have created a wildlife haven on their dairy farm through the creation of smart habitats. Martin and his wife have identified over 200 species of birds on their 400 acre farm. Their farm is located in the midst of the breadbasket and is a lighthouse of hope among the monocultures rows that dominate the landscape. As a result, the available habitat for bird species is only a miniscule fraction of what originally constituted the landscape and as such bird populations, in general, have plummeted. Restoration of the land is a difficult task though as 90% of the land is owned by private farms. As such, Minnesota has implemented the Working Lands Initiative- which is a new federal conservation partnership among farmers, conservation groups and local wildlife managers. The goal is to find a happy medium between wildlife and farm profit so that both can coexist.

   Jaus’s farm provides us with a model of farming practices that do just this. On dairy farms, feeding the cows is the most expensive task. By creating a diverse mixture of crop fields, pastures and hay grounds they were able to create more stable pastures that were less susceptible to ruination. This technique, when applied with rotational grazing creates suitable microhabitats for many species, including birds but mice as well, which are an important food source for most carnivores in the region.

    An important aspect of the Jaus farm is the value added to their product, as they are a certified organic farm. Without the hike in prices this farm would not be able to spin a profit. In the closing remarks it was also noted that the eaters themselves are the true conservationists, as they make the decision as to what food they buy, which ultimately related back to the land.

Rochelle Streker

Farming and Wildlife: A Mutually Beneficial Arrangement

by: Harry Cline

This article talked about a specific example of farming and wildlife habitat working together in California. Under the Yolo Bypass in Sacramento, California there is the Yolo Wildlife Area which allow some farmers to use the land as well. The farmers grow rice, corn, and tomatoes in the wetland area, and open up their fields, both ones in use and out of use, to migratory birds on their way. The farmers, including Mike DeWitt, see no problem with allowing the birds to use their farmlands, and seem to enjoy it to a degree. In economic terms, the birds eat pests that would destroy some of the crops and also eat old seeds in the ground that are limiting the growth of new crops, which is good for the farmers. As for closing some of his fields for the birds, DeWitt seemed to have no problem since the other benefits from the birds caused his open fields to be more productive. From this arrangement, the birds gain a guaranteed safety spot on their migration, filled with seeds, aquatic plants, and no predators. The water in the farms is also kept at a shallow enough level for birds to inhabit them. There are also come cows in the Yolo Bypass, which graze on the terrestrial plants, allowing for the aquatic plants to thrive.  The wildlife and farming have a win-win relationship with each other, both benefiting from sharing the land with each other.

I think that this is an interesting and great way to run a farm in an ecologically conscience way. The farm makes making sure the birds have habitat a part of their daily work, and in turn reaps benefits from the mutual arrangement. The birds use the farm as a safe haven and in turn, improve the quality of the crops and ensures the state will continue to support the farmers on the wildlife area land. When DeWitt was interviewed, he mentioned that at first he didn't understand why the birds habitat was so important, but allowed them to live on his farm land because of the states initiative. Once he began to interact with the birds more, he became interested in the birds and studied some of the species and their migrations. I feel that this is an important point when it comes to integrating wildlife habitats and farming. While DeWitt at first did not care about the birds, simply about his profit, with more interactions he became more interested, and with new knowledge more amazed and supportive of the birds that used his land. I think that letting the wildlife that lives on farmers 'grow onto' the farmer through knowledge and daily interactions is the best way to ensure that farms and wildlife coexist peacefully. Once there is the emotional attachment to the wildlife, there is more incentive, besides profit, for farms and farmers to coexist with the wildlife.

If you want to read more about the Yolo Wildlife Area, you can read the article here.
Photo credit: California Outdoors

Stephanie Rosengarden

Creating Wildlife Habitat through Federal Farm Programs: An Objective-Driven Approach

By: L. Wes Burger Jr.

"Large-scale wildlife conservation will require integration of cost effective and sustainable conservation practices into mainstream agricultural production systems (Peterjohn 2003, Burger et al. 2006). Thus, I maintain that the future viability of wildlife populations in the United States is inextricably linked to the land-use decisions of these private landowners." These are the goals set by Burger in order to accomplish  balanced wildlife-farm interactions. This paper begins by discussing the Farm Bill, legislation used to govern food policy in the United States (see also: Relative Documents). There is an entire section of the bill for conservation efforts and rules surrounding agriculture that has both helped and hurt wildlife habitats throughout the US. Burger's main problem with the bill is that he feels that by letting farmers 'subscribe' to a certain type of conservation management included the in the bill, the bill is not accurately aiding wildlife habitat conservation. To Burger, the categories are too broad to address the many different types of habitat there is and the many different types of farms that exist. Rather than this broadness, Burger argues for more action at the local field-office level of the Department of Agriculture, which would allow for more specialization in creating a conservation plan to fit the different areas.
I think that this is not only a good idea in terms of conservation, but also in terms of economic stability at the local level. By allowing those who are familiar with the land to create a plan for conservation, one creates a better plan that fits the needs of the wildlife and the farmers better than a broad federal plan, which would not be able to specialize at this level. This also allows for more local jobs at the local level, and integrates wildlife conservation into the local level. Once there are people within a community that work with farmers to create a  conservation plan that works with their farms specifically, the farmers will feel more in control of their land and more willing to conserve since the plan will be tailored to benefit them as well as the wildlife. This personalization of wildlife conservation makes the conservation idea in the Farm Bill more accessible and useful to farms throughout the US.

If you would like to ready more about the Farm Bill, you can go to our 'Relative Documents' Page or to the article mentioned above here. 

Maxwell Siegel

The Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

Choosing organic food as a consumer is more that just an environmentally friendly choice, it is a healthy and ethical choice as well.  The benefits of organic agriculture extend far beyond that many believe.  Sure money should be factored into one’s consumer habits, however cheaper is not always better!  Organic food does cost more than conventional meats and produce at supermarkets, but it is worth every extra penny.

            There are three major categories that highlight the benefits of organic agriculture.  The first, and arguably the most important are the environmental effects that pertain to the farming procedures. The bioaccumulation and magnification of chemical pesticides such as Atrazine and DDT in the past decade has greatly impacted the wildlife and plant diversity of hundreds of ecosystems. (Ifoam) Organic agriculture prohibits the use of artificial chemical products, saving our landscapes from these toxins often associated with conventional practices. 

            Chemical fertilizers are the other aspect of environmental issues in the agricultural trade.  An inordinate amount of phosphorus runs off of fields and directly into bodies of water such as lakes and rivers.  Phosphorus changes the mineral composition of the water leading to a process called eutrophication that entails the wild growth of algae.  Bodies of water with phosphorus levels higher than normal experience “suffocation” as the algae eats up all of the available oxygen.  (Beyodnpesticides.org)

            Conventional agriculture also helps add carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and fuel climate change.  Most do not realize when purchasing their groceries that many items travel thousand of miles from field to store.  The transportation costs, economically and environmentally are extremely heightened when compared to organic procedures.  Organic farming is commonly done on a more local small scale basis.  Not only does local farming decrease the energy needed to transport goods, but it also fuels the local small business economy.  It feels right to buy organic knowing that the money spent directly supports farmers dedicated to the environment and the local community.

            The health aspects to organic foods are often over exaggerated to a degree.  There is no difference in the “healthiness” of any conventional foods except for milk and tomatoes that have been found to pack more nutrition when grown organically.  (Organicfacts.net) Obviously foods that are grown without the use of pesticides are better for the human body, as there is a smaller risk of developing cancer from the carcinogens found in conventional foods.

            Lastly, organic agriculture supports oral and ethical farming practices that conventional corporation too often overlook.  Conventional agriculture especially in the meat packing industry compromises the rights of the animals as they are often brutally kicked around and slaughtered alive.  (Food Inc.) Employees rights are not taken seriously as well as they are paid low wages and often find themselves in large debts working for meat companies who only care about the end profit. (Food Inc.)

            Choosing to purchase and consume organic foods supports an industry that understands the needs of the earth in the long run.  The environment, employees, animals, and the consumers health are all positively impacted by kicking conventional agriculture and businesses to the side and focusing on what is right.  Many do not understand the facts of organic verse conventional agriculture, but even a quick look proves the benefits are real and the extra buck will be well spent.