Overall, the findings of this study indicate that there are possibilities for integrating domestic birds into ecologically-based agricultural systems for biological pest management. The geese, in particular, demonstrated clear potential as weed control agents. Although not suited for all types of systems, geese show the greatest potential in diversified horticultural operations, especially when agrochemicals, such as herbicides, are not used. Production systems comprised of perennial shrubs and trees are most compatible with geese because they provide shade for the birds and are relatively immune to feeding and trampling damage. However, annual vegetables and herbs can also be compatible with weeder geese, but may require additional care, such as trellising or staking, to prevent damage. The indirect effects of geese on insect pests may be positive, negative, or absent. Further research is needed to evaluate how disturbance by foraging geese affects insect pests and their damage.
One factor which may limit the use of weeder geese is the perception that they are too aggressive. Although the threat by domestic geese is commonly overstated, farmers and gardeners who are unfamiliar with these birds may be intimidated by their defensive displays. Education and experience with geese may be needed to counter this perception.
This study provides relatively little support for integrating free-range chickens into agroecosystems for insect pest or weed control. Although chickens did consume insects and weeds in this study, their impact did not result in any real detectible crop protection benefits. The results did suggest that chickens may have some potential in controlling Japanese beetles, especially if used in conjunction with lures. However, achieving any measurable level of insect pest or weed control with free-range chickens would require much higher stocking rates than were used in this study. Another factor which can limit the applicability of free-range chickens in pest management is loss to predators. Although coops and electric fencing can provide some protection, losses can still be high in rural areas with little human presence. In situations in which high stocking rates can be achieved and predator pressure is minimal, free-range chickens may have some potential to play a role in biological pest management.
B. Bird Use On-Farm
A basic assumption underlying the qualitative portion of the project was that research results obtained under relatively controlled conditions would be considerably modified in actual on-farm practice. Much of this discrepancy stems from the fact that real life is messy. Farmer decisions and behavioral responses are seldom informed by a single variable, but by a living context built up of multiple needs, understandings and interactions. Rather than deny or eliminate this context, and thereby devalue farmer experience and knowledge, the present study deliberately tried to investigate it and use it as a basis to explain local variation - in this case variation in on-farm bird use and participation in on-farm research among six small, diversified, Michigan farms (see farm descriptions).
Findings for this portion of the study, then, are descriptive in nature. While no definitive conclusions are possible on the basis of six cases, an analysis can suggest reasons for variation and patterns for further investigation. Of particular relevance are the characteristics and conditions that a) constrain on-farm bird use and b) keep farmers from participating more fully in the research itself.
Major constraints to the incorporation of domestic birds as biocontrol agents at the six study sites were as follows:
Weather
One of the greatest constraints to using domestic birds for weed and insect management was the weather. All the farms in this study were affected by a long, cold, wet spring in 1996 and 1997, and an unseasonably dry summer in 1996. Due to these weather patterns, the farm operators were unable to put the birds out-of-doors until late in the season.
A high mortality rate among the young birds was one of the weather's worst effects. At four of the six farm sites there was a large loss of birds during the cold spring and early summer. At one farm site over half of the initial flock (30 birds) died due to the cold weather.
The weather also caused the slow growth of crops so that the birds, in some cases, were too large for the size of the crop and caused significant damage to the small plants.
Lack of ag-food infrastructure
All of the farms in the study were affected by the lack of adequate community, market and policy support. This lack of infrastructure had many dimensions including:
Little Community Support of Small Local Farms. Most community members do not purchase products from small farms. The connection between growers and eaters is still very weak. One farm operator stated, "No, there's not a lot of support. Where I work [off-farm] there's a lot of environmentalists but they don't do anything to support... agriculture. They pay lip service to it, and they recycle their pop bottles and cans, but they're not getting the connection. I don't think society as a whole is there yet." Another farm operator stated, "They [the consumers] want cheap and convenient. That's all they really want."
One of the reoccurring problems that these small farms are coping with is economic development pressure. Township planning and land use decisions are not supporting these diversified agricultural lands. One of the farm operators was denied a permit to build a bakery on his site (to further use the products grown on site, and add value to his products). He was denied because his neighbors were unwilling to allow a small business to operate in their suburban neighborhood. Another farm was asked by a township official to remove their farm sign from their front yard. To keep it, the farm operators had to prove that their farm income was less than 40 percent of their total household income and that the sign was smaller than the zoned limit. At a third farm site, there has been a recurring problem with developers wanting to subdivide nearby property. Development means a new tax to support the construction of a centralized sewer system. The assessment based on road frontage would essentially force this small farm out of business.
Local government is interested in "developing" land in ways that promise a greater tax base and/or more jobs. These tend to be short term goals that place little value on sustaining agricultural lands or supporting small, diversified farming systems.
In fact, it is suggested that these small diversified farms, despite their commitment to sustainable agriculture, are actually more vulnerable than conventionally-managed farms given the absence of support beyond the farm (see below).
No Processing Facilities Nearby for Birds. This was an important constraint on those farms that raise birds for meat. There are few independent butchers who will handle small batches and no organic processors in the area at all. This makes selling organic meat (which can deliver a premium) difficult if not impossible.
Lack of Input Sources. The farm operators have a difficult time finding organic inputs. Some of the inputs (e.g., feed, seed) are available, but are too costly. Some inputs are not available (e.g., compost materials, vegetable starts). One farm operator was forced to build his own greenhouse and begin growing his own vegetable starts because the only local organic greenhouse went out of business. Although diversification is a goal of this farm operator, the financial costs associated with this additional operation have been quite high.
Lack of Support from Lenders. One of the farm operators discussed his difficulty in finding lenders willing to help him refinance his diversified operation. Without the support of the banking industry, diversifying a farm operation can actually cause further economic difficulties for the farm operation.
The Interconnectedness of Constraints. The above constraints often have a cumulative effect upon the individual farm sites. These farm operators work in relative community isolation, often coping with constraints by becoming 'Jacks of all trades.' This sort of on-farm integration makes these farmers directly vulnerable when their farming system is stressed. Without a strong agricultural infrastructure beyond the farm, the inevitable crisis (e.g., floods, family sickness, crop failure), causes farm operators to struggle alone to meet the complex, integrated demands of their farm systems.
Low Priority Research
Although all of the farm operators agreed to participate in the research as full project collaborators, the realities of farming made this ideal difficult to realize. While most of the farm operators made substantial efforts to participate, it was not possible to keep the research a consistently high priority. Farm schedules are based on the vagaries of weather, economics, family crisis, and other "messy" details. For example, when heavy rains, and poor drainage caused flooding in the basement of the home of one of the farm operators, journal entries were not kept up and interview appointments were cancelled. At another farm site, one of the farm operators fell ill and was not able to take the extra time necessary to move his birds into new vegetable plots for weed and pest management. None of the participants were able to make daily entries in the journal. Appointments for farm visits often were cancelled or forgotten.
A closely related issue is the perception the farm collaborators held of science and their role in a formal research project. Farm operators tended to minimize or devalue their own on-site observations and priviledge the scientific knowledge provided by credentialed experts. With two exceptions, they were unwilling to think of themselves as experts. They were also mildly confused by discussions that focussed on the whole farm operation and on farming values as opposed to bird use. Typicially, they relied on the researchers to tell them how to use the birds and to provide them with qualitative answers to their management questions. While this passive role is consistent with a deep-seated belief in the authority of science, it is also a way to conserve personal time and energy -- resources small diversified farmers have in short supply. Research, then, that depends on the full participation of small, diversified farmers should be able to a) compensate farmers adequately for their time b) provide them with consistent research assistance in data retrieval and record keeping and c) schedule regular meetings to collectively discuss both the qualitative and quantitative observations of farmers and reseachers.
Shortage of labor
Farm operators noted that the shortage of skilled workers made meeting the needs of the farm operation, and incorporating domestic birds into the present system, difficult. The high cost of hired labor and/or the additional chores for existing laborers made the addition of domestic birds problematic. Isolating bird use from other on-farm activities was not easy nor even desirable and farm operators stated that finding farm labor experienced in working with such complex and diverse systems is very difficult. As one farm operator stated, "I can't be there to explain everything that needs to be done. I need someone who can look around and know what needs to be done next."
Lack of experience/information:
Several farm operators felt that they lacked sufficient information about domestic birds to feel confident incorporating them into their system. One farm operator, despite plans to the contrary, did not use the birds for pest management at all, believing that she did not have enough information or experience to take on the task when she was already so busy.
Fencing/pen:
Farm operators noted several constraints to using domestic birds with the electric poultry netting. All of the farmers who experimented with the battery provided found it was too weak for the system. Using non-recyclable batteries was prohibitively expensive and they did not keep a charge for any reasonable length of time. The farm operators all stated that they would be happiest if the system was self-charging, (i.e., solar), but most agreed that charging a heavier car-type battery once a week would be acceptable.
The netting too was problematic. Some of the smaller birds became tangled in the netting and several died. The netting also quickly sagged, allowing the birds to escape over the top, or by ducking underneath it. Full grown geese were capable of trampling the fence down. This added to labor costs, as the birds needed to be caught and returned to their pens.
Bio-physical limitations:
The birds did not consistently eat all weeds. This was especially true of larger, more fibrous weeds such as ragweed.
Disease was a substantial problem due in large part to the unseasonably cold spring weather.
Predators were a problem on some of the farm sites. This was not a consistent problem on all of the sites. Raccoons were the predator problem most often noted. One farm operator stated that she lost sixteen chickens in one weekend to raccoons. Foxes, hawks and owls were also noted as predators.
The birds could only be used in areas were the crop was robust enough to withstand the trampling and scratching activities of the birds.
Farmers noted that the egg production levels of birds used for weeding (vs. traditionally kept free range birds) was lower. This constraint may be due to differing levels of supplemental feeding.
Roosters and all geese were considered too aggressive to be viable options for farm sites where there were children or others not accustomed to working with birds.
Birds that escaped their enclosures often consumed crops meant for humans.
Economic: There were several economic constraints noted by the farm operators and the researchers.
The cost of raising the birds was not met by the local market price. None of the farm operators who were raising birds for meat included the cost of their labor, and even with this false accounting, the cost of raising birds for meat on a small scale was noted to be higher than supermarket prices.
The cost of feed and of enclosure supplies was not being met by the market price of the birds.
Slaughter costs and transport costs were high.
While farm operators noted the above constraints to bird use, all were willing to continue using the birds, at least in modified ways, for weed and pest management. The perceived advantages of incorporating the birds into the farm system appears to outweigh the perceived risk.
Despite the numerous constraints to domestic birds use noted above, the farmer collaborators all indicated that the benefits of integrating birds into their farming systems outweighed the disadvantages. They also felt that the disadvantages could be minimized over time. Each farm operator had his/her own set of reasons for keeping birds on-farm. In all cases, however, these reasons blended personal experience and philosophy with the more pragmatic or rational concerns of farm management. Four basic considerations figured into bird-use decisions. The first was an aesthetic appreciation of the birds themselves and of the appearance or atmosphere they lent the farm. The second was a belief in the correctness of a well-integrated and possibly more biologically stable agroecosystem. The third was an interest in the birds as a source of eggs and/or meat and ultimately in their contribution to a more diversified farm economy. Finally, there was the simple enjoyment or pleasure to be derived from watching and interacting with the birds.