What Does Sustainable Mean to You?

During a recent conversation, I was asked one of the most complex questions I have ever been asked: what does sustainable mean to you?

I wasn't expecting the question and was caught off guard.  However, since I was attempting to impress the one who asked, I thought quickly and came up with what I thought was a decent answer.  At a pasture walk I had attended earlier in the month, a speaker had been talking about grazing systems and had spoken about regenerating the land and ecosystem to the point that it is sustainable and doesn't need outside help.  I talked about that and the person who had asked the question seemed to like my answer and the conversation moved on.

The question, however, stuck with me.  I've been pondering it these past couple of weeks, somehow not fully satisfied with my answer.  Part of the problem is that I used the word "sustainable" in my answer.  That's just embarrassing.  Another part of the problem is that "sustainable" is ridiculously difficult to define due to the complexity of the systems to which the term is generally applied.

For example, let's say I want my farm to be sustainable.  In what way do I want it to be sustainable?  I could say I want it to be financially sustainable so that I don't have to work off the farm.  But that might destroy the environment or break down relationships.  If I want to be environmentally sustainable, I might not be able to make money and the farm will fail.  If I desire relational sustainability, the farm might never grow or be profitable because I am trying to please everyone.  In every case, the farm breaks down.

So, for the farm to be truly sustainable, it must be able to sustain the integral relationships, the environment, profitability, and in all likelihood, a number of other factors, too.  I still haven't really defined "sustainable," though.  All I've done is illustrate it's complexity.

Back to the original question, then: what does sustainability mean to you?  As I said, I've been pondering that question for a couple of weeks now and have begun to form a fuller answer.  I still think that for a system to be sustainable, it should be able to exist without outside inputs.  For example, a farm is not truly sustainable if it requires the owner to have an off-farm job for extra income.  

But more than just existing as it is, I think sustainability means adaptability.  No system exists in a bubble.  The reality is that outside influences can and do easily disrupt the normal existence of a system.  Think about the effects of fires and floods on ecosystems, for example.  For a system to truly be sustainable, it must be able to adapt to changes, whether those changes come from within the system or from outside influences.

I have areas of pasture that flooded this year.  Those areas aren't going to be completely ruined, though, because the soil and ecosystem of the pasture is adaptable.  It is certainly not a fun scenario to deal with, but I know that the pasture will bounce back once the massive puddles dry up.  My bit of pasture is adaptable, and is, therefore, sustainable.  In a different situation, the flooding might devastate an area if the topsoil is thin and easily stripped away, and there is no diversity in the ecosystem to bring the land back to a healthy state.  That portion of land is not adaptable, and therefore, not sustainable.

This does not, of course, apply to any situation in which the change is catastrophic.  For example, I'm not about to call a town destroyed by a catastrophic flood unsustainable if it can't rebuild without help.  That would be ridiculous.

The approach of one of the storms that filled the low spots in my pasture with water. 
I've lost count of the number of times I've filled my boots out there.

I also want to point out that change can be good.  I might change my grazing system for the better, but the pasture is still going to need to adapt to that.  Through the adaptation process, the pasture might even be improved from what it was, so that it will be able to adapt even better the next time I change something.  I am not saying that change is good or bad.  However, it can cause stress on a system and that system must be able to adapt or it will not survive.

This has been a lot of words and explanation.  Allow me now to put my current definition into one sentence.  For a farm (or other system) to be sustainable, it must exist at a point at which it is able to adapt to change without outside aid.  

Edit: August 4, 2019
Since publishing this post, my definition has been slightly revised, thanks to responses.  My current working definition of "sustainable" is as follows: For a farm (or other system to be sustainable, it must continuously and actively maintain a balance of all parts,while being able to adapt to change without outside aid.

I might revise that definition many times throughout my life as I continue to read and learn and experience, but for now, you have my answer to our starting question.  Now, I will turn the question to you, my readers.  What does sustainable mean to you?

Send me your answers in the comments!  I look forward to learning from each of you!

Why I Took a Day Off to Walk Through a Pasture

I took a day off earlier this month.  The weather wasn't looking great and I didn't have too much on my to do list, so I got up far earlier than I normally would on a lazy Saturday and took off for parts unknown!

Actually, I drove for about 25 minutes along roads I've traveled many times and soon arrived at a pasture.  There were already several other vehicles parked on the hill, and people were standing around chatting and waiting for the coffee to arrive.  I had come to a pasture walk.

This pasture walk was put on by the Gateway Research Organization (GRO) and Greener Pastures Ranching and was held in a pasture managed Steve Kenyon from Greener Pastures.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with a pasture walk, allow me to explain what happens.  We walk.  Through a pasture.  We also listen to people talk about what they are doing, ask several dozen questions and generally have a great time.

At this particular pasture walk, we had two main speakers: Steve Kenyon and Brent Thygesen from Ducks Unlimited Canada.  These two men, along with Steve's wife, Amber (who works for GRO), showed us around a few different pastures and talked to us about a variety of topics, including, but not limited to the following:

• the basics of good grazing practices
• how to manage watering sites and riparian areas well
• the ins and outs of direct marketing
• winter fencing tips
• electric fencing tips
• pest control and how to know if pests are a problem or a symptom
• the specifics of a University of Alberta study on carbon capture

One of six pages of notes I took at the pasture walk.  No one else took notes, but I retain information better that way.

There were about 20 of us in the pastures, all farmers seeking to increase our knowledge and to learn from a local farmer who has been trying things for years that we are all just a little nervous to try.  Within the pastures, we walked from site to site (hence, pasture walk).  However, to get from pasture to pasture, we were transported on a goose neck trailer, which had sturdy picnic tables strapped securely to it.  Illegal?  Most likely.  Unsafe?  Almost certainly.  The most exhilarating way to travel?  Absolutely!

The pasture walk took several hours, including a lunch break.  When it was over, we all just hung around, visiting and continuing to learn from each other.  As one of the youngest participants, I didn't say much, but I enjoyed listening to the conversations around me, most of which centered on the practical side of regenerative grazing techniques, something I've been acquiring an interest in.

If you are a farmer and a local county or research organization is putting on a pasture walk, I highly recommend attending.  If you aren't a farmer, I still recommend attending.  These types of events are where you will find farmers who are looking for a different ways to farm and take care of the environment.  These are farmers who are willing to seek out and try new techniques.  They are curious, thoughtful, innovative, and fun to be around.  

This was my first ever pasture walk and I had an amazing time!  Will you be checking out the next one in your area?

A Mixed Farmer's Response to an Appalling Anti-Vegan Post

Not long ago, I read a social media post.  It was distasteful, but I didn't pay it much mind.  A couple of days ago, however, one of my social media friends re-posted it and tagged me in the post.  Of course, I got blamed for the atrocious content of the post, which upset others of my friends, so now I must take the time to write a response.  Here it is.

The Offending Post

The post is unfortunate for a number of reasons, which I will outline here.

1. All vegans are attacked, when only a few need to be addressed.

While I am not against veganism itself, I do not generally appreciate the harsh criticism of animal activists who claim that animal agriculture is ruining the planet, our health, and everything else and promote a vegan lifestyle as a safer, healthier, environmentally friendly alternative.  I believe the above social media post is meant to address the arguments of such activists, but instead it unduly attacks all those who choose to be vegans.  I absolutely cannot condone any post that paints a large group of people in an unsavory light, as this one does.

2. Crop farmers are attacked.

Since when is it appropriate to show support for one portion of agriculture by attacking another?  Are we seriously trying to defend livestock farmers by saying, "Oh yeah, well those crop farmers are so much worse!"  Or, to quote the post, "Farmers routinely unleash an arsenal of agricultural weaponry upon unquestionably sentient 'pests'...come harvest time, combines and harvesters unavoidably shred millions of self-aware critters."  Really?  Why are we demonizing our neighbours?  And if I want to use this argument, I am demonizing myself as a crop farmer to justify myself as a beef farmer.  How ridiculous!

Besides, the harvest of crops does not always necessitate the shredding of critters.  For example, straight cut headers and stripper headers allow grains to be harvested in a manner which leaves the stalks still standing in the fields.  The critters that run about on the ground are therefore left intact.

3. Livestock farmers are made to look bad.

I have often found that those who are least deserving of respect are those who refuse to show respect.  This post gives the impression of being written from a livestock farmer's point of view.  How does such a disrespectful post make livestock farmers look any better?  It makes us look childish, petulant, and hard-hearted.  That won't help our image.

4. The arguments are unhelpful and easy to destroy.

To prove this point, allow me to give an example of a conversation that might occur.

Animal Activist (A1): Animal agriculture is cruel.  We should rid the world of animal agriculture and all go vegan!
Anti-Vegan Activist (A2): Harvesting crops also  kills animals!  You're horrible people, too!
A1: We don't purposely kill them like you do, so there!
A2: Well you kill more!
A1: Are you sure?  I picked [X vegetable] with my own hands and I bought [Y vegetable] from my friend at the farmer's market who hand picks everything, and my bread is made with wheat that I watched being harvested with a straight cut header, which was lifted high enough to avoid picking up rodents!  What have you to say to that?!

It's like watching two children argue, but the point is that I just destroyed the main damning argument of the entire post in 5 lines.  How on earth does that help anything?

This absurd post obstructs constructive conversation, fails to mount any defensible argument, and does nothing to acknowledge and improve on any of the shortcomings that actually do need to be addressed by the livestock industries.