Tales From the Field: One Farm’s Dedication to Building Biocapacity 

“We’re not doing anything, we’re just growing old grains,” * Chris insists. I have managed to catch him on the phone in a rare sedentary moment as he winds down for the winter. It will become apparent over the course of our conversation that this initial assertion is a gross understatement. Chris and Mary Wooding run Ironwood Organics, a hundred-acre regenerative organic grain farm and mill in Athens, Ontario where they grow ‘heritage’ cereal grains. When I ask Chris how he thinks about ecological footprint on his farm he turns it around on me. Emphasizing a focus on building biocapacity he says that “our ecological footprint is how negative can we make it, in terms of decreased soil compaction, carbon sequestration and biodiversity enhancement.” They accomplish this through careful observation, extensive data collection, and ongoing adaptation, the benefits of which can be seen from their fields and forests all the way down to the individual grains.

From the Ground Up: Biocapacity in the Field

For Chris and Mary, building biocapacity in the field all comes back to the soil. They return all of the straw from the grain harvest back to the fields as compost- which Chris estimates amount to about 150-200 square bails-and don’t apply any pesticides or fertilizers, instead managing weeds through techniques like cover-cropping and companion planting. He describes the cumulative impacts of these practices as “absolutely dramatic,” noting almost a doubling of their crop yields in the twelve years they’ve been on the farm. Moreover, in nutrient testing their grains have shown to be “almost 150% more mineral dense than conventional grains.”

Author’s note: While Chris and I did not discuss the specifics of the reasons for these nutrient-dense grains in our conversation, as someone familiar with regenerative grain farming, I can attempt to offer some clarity. Nutrient uptake relies largely on a robust root structure which is absent from many modern grain varieties made to rely on fertilizers and irrigation. The older varieties Chris plants are adapted to grow without irrigation or applications of chemical fertilizer which necessitates a more robust root structure to derive both nutrients and water from the soil. This translates, in part, as greater nutrient uptake in the grain. Many of Chris’ varieties are also fall-planted as opposed to spring-planted and there is some evidence demonstrating that fall-planted grains may have better nutrient uptake as their root systems have more time to develop over the winter. 

He also claims that farm is also now flood tolerant, something he attributes to the high soil organic matter. To demonstrate, he highlights a test from this past summer comparing the infiltration rate (the time it takes for water to absorb into the soil) on his farm with that of a neighbouring conventional farm. On his farm, the infiltration rate for 500ml of water (equivalent to about an inch of rainfall he says) was 54 seconds, while on the neighbouring farm it was 10 minutes and 40 seconds, which can be the difference between flooding and no flooding many times over. In addition to flood tolerance Chris also emphasizes the link between soil organic matter, moisture retention and carbon sequestration, though it is worth noting here that the Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity accounting currently only tracks forest carbon sequestration.

The majority of the farm’s ecological footprint is created after the harvest, generated in the form of carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Delivery is by far the largest contributor with Chris calculating that he spends about $3000 annually on gasoline for his truck. He sums it up rather succinctly lamenting that “I bet we spent more in gasoline delivering the flour than we did in diesel to grow the grain.” Though they are often looking for ways to reduce this component of their ecological footprint, the small-scale of their farm limits their opportunities for engaging a larger third-party distributor, and frankly makes it more trouble than it’s worth.

Aside from delivery, processing in the form of harvesting and drying has the next largest impact. If the grain is too wet at harvest, then it has to be dried before storage using large driers that run on fossil fuel. In a wet year this can significantly impact the farm’s ecological footprint as they have to dry several thousand pounds of grain in a short span of time. Chris also points out that the wetter the grain is in the field, the slower the combine harvester has to run, meaning there will be more diesel used for the tractor. Though relatively small in individual terms, across multiple farms one could consider that a wet versus a dry growing season could create a notable difference crop-related carbon emissions.

Over the wetland and through the woods: Building biocapacity off the field

With only forty acres under cultivation, it would be reasonable to describe Ironwood Organics as a woodland that happens to have a farm. As a result, much of work of building biocapacity on the farm happens through non-agricultural labour like “tree planting and hedgerows, hibernaculum for snakes, putting woods discs out in the forest for salamanders, wetland management and invasive species remediation.” Though the management of the forest and wetlands that make up the bulk of the farm do provide agricultural benefits, Chris and Mary are primarily concerned with their role in carbon sequestration and the protection of biodiversity.

The 62 acres of wetland that run across the back of the farm are part of a 194-acre Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW). Most of their wetland management at the moment is passive and includes tracking moisture levels and observing beaver activity (of which there is a reasonable amount). In terms of active management, they monitor the growth of invasive plant species, removing them as necessary, as well as managing the water flow in the creek. To manage the water, they have built 70 eight-inch step dams into which the water pools helping it to sediment and oxygenate, as well as preventing erosion by gently guiding the water down what would otherwise be a 35-meter drop over half a kilometer. Aside from extending the seasonal life of the creek-before they put in the dams, the “water used to finish by the end of May and now it runs until the second week of August,”- Chris also indicates that the oxygenated water helps with biodiversity creating the growing conditions for a number unique plant species.

Biocapacity by the numbers: A Farmer’s Balance Sheet

While the biocapacity that Chris and Mary have built on their farm does have tangible impacts on crop yields, the reality is that most of the work to monitor the farm’s ecological footprint and biocapacity does not have any market value. Taking me through some of his numbers Chris estimates about 2200 hours of farm labour annually and an hourly wage for himself that works out to about 16$/hr.  A little under half of those labour hours, and half of that $16 are invested in the farm through ecological footprint and biocapacity-related farm management, activities. While this work generates little to no financial gain, as described above, it is essential to both the quality of crop production and the longevity of the farm. The 1200-or-so hours left to devote to profitable growing makes yield about $8.50 an hour take home for the farmer. With numbers like that, it’s no wonder that Chris and Mary are outliers in their commitment to monitoring and improving the biocapacity of their farm.

Towards the end of the call, I give Chris the elevator pitch about the work of IEFLL, building upon the work of Global Footprint Network and over thirty years of scholarship on the measurement and application of ecological footprint and biocapacity. When I ask him whether he has engaged with any of the data before he’s immediately excited by the idea: “No we have not, but I would love to. I think that would be really really amazing.” While only one farmer’s response, where’s there’s one there are bound to be others. Engaging farmers with the ecological footprint and biocapacity of their farms could present a great opportunity for IEFLL to harness the knowledge and experience of farmers on their land  and give them the tools to begin move the needle one farm at a time.

*All quotes are taken from a phone interview with Chris Wooding conducted by the author on December 3, 2025. The interview has been transcribed and edited for clarity.