Last month we took a look at the living landscapes of Land Management within the Responsible Wool Standard (RWS). Between the careful maintenance of the soil and biodiversity of the plant, animals, and aquascapes on certified and hopeful farms, it was a lot to digest, so we decided to divide the Land Management Criteria section in half. This month we’re diving into fertilizers and pesticides and, this time, the criteria are much easier to work with. Despite their differing roles in agriculture, there’s quite a bit of overlap in the potential environmental effects of and, thus, in the handling of both valuable tools in the farmer’s toolshed.
More Alike than You Might Think- the Overlap in Pesticide and Fertilizer Management
Four articles in and I’m sure you’ll feel the pattern in its final form when we tell you that both the fertilizers and pesticides ranchers use require formally written and reviewed plans, updated annually, under the RWS. These plans include soil testing and managing use to minimize the use of the agents to where they are most efficient to maintain the healthiest soil. For farmers to act in best practice, they are expected to refrain from regular use of both agents, apply them to limited and specific areas, and minimize exposure by contamination events like runoff. Equipment used to spread agents or manage areas affected are also controlled to reduce the effects on the surrounding environment.
Because both pesticides and fertilizers can spread to other areas and affect the surrounding area, it makes sense that they are sometimes treated similarly. Even natural fertilizers can carry harmful bacteria that can cause as much harm as harsh chemical fertilizers to not only grazing or drinking sheep and livestock, but to humans as well. Having restrictions for both on what, how, and when they can be used protects not only the animals that produce the fibers we love, but the surrounding lands and people.
However, pesticides and fertilizers are still fairly different compounds with different roles. The way they affect the surrounding spaces is dramatically different. A small example is how fertilizers might affect an aquascape within ranch boundaries. The nutrients within fertilizers could cause a mass algal bloom and burst of plant growth that could choke out the oxygen in the water system, drowning fish, clogging flows and stagnating the water thus breeding insects like mosquitoes, and- depending on variety, even poisoning animals or people. Meanwhile pesticides could kill the entire aqueous ecosystem and still continue on to make animals and people ill. So, while the end results still have some overlap, they are vastly different in the path to get there and so is the way their divergent points are handled.
Handling the Differences- Individualized Safety Procedures
Starting with fertilizers, because they are used to balance nutrients and function within the ever-important soil quality, their controls center around two important points: degradation and nutrient load. Farmers must ensure that their fertilizers are balanced so that they do not contain heavy metals and so that their application takes into account the available nutrients in the current soil- a key reason every plan requires regular testing. Keeping this nutrient balance in mind, and considering the general microbial health of the environment, farmers must also be conscious when spreading their fertilizers on specific crop spaces- away from water bodies, natural ecosystems, and riparian zones to prevent spread and degradation with machinery that is kept in top working order. In general, this is the less restrictive of the two sets of criteria.
Pesticides, on the other hand, present a more acute risk and the restrictions specifically placed on them express that. The RWS fully prohibits the use of prophylactic chemical pesticides, stating that biological, physical and cultural control methods should be used “if they provide satisfactory control, instead. Farmers are also expected to use the minimum amount of pesticide needed effectively to limit negative effects and avoid any damage to beneficial organisms. These restrictions also feed into the direct requirement for farmers to take actions that avoid the development of pesticide resistance. Finally, disposal of pesticides and containers is strictly controlled, requiring farmers to dispose of them safely at an appropriate location or through a collection or recycling service. Through all of this, the farms are required to maintain detailed records of all pesticides used.
Bringing it Back to You
These regulations, with their thorough documentation and significant dedication to best farming practices, show discipline and a belief in better, evidence-based farming practices that you as a consumer and community can trust. Knowing that the Responsible Wool Standard certifies the entire supply chain from Ranch to Wholesale, as we covered way back in RWS Part 1, offers protection in the integrity and traceability of fiber that many natural wool products don’t currently have. It lets ranchers and suppliers give you the gift of consistency and confidence that the claims you hear about your wool are backed by best practices instead of being greenwashed by popular marketing.
This confidence and transparency is why we here at the Mill House love being able to offer you a selection of high quality wools from the Shaniko Wool Company. While we can’t show you the exact sheep that grew your fiber, we can offer you the understanding of where and how it was raised and in what conditions with complete confidence.
Leave a comment