I can't believe what I just read! BBC

[wrenbird]

The article states that the cattle are fed forage in the winter instead of soya, not exactly a like for like swap.

 

[stroller]

The plough has been the primary cultivation tool throughout the world for millennia. The BBC seem to think it a modern invention!!

4WD and ploughing 8-12" deep is modern, before that ploughing would have been more like complete inversion min till.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

It can feed the world if 75% of the worlds population dies.
Without fertiliser inputs crop yields will plumit.
Manures will work where they are available, but most farm nutrients go to cities and very little human sh!t is used in developed countries. Without the return of those nutrients we can not continue to keep our cur current yields without fertiliser.

Trouble is the city folk add so much dangerous stuff in to their sh!t that we don't want it on farms now: Synthetic hormones (contraceptives), micro-plastics, anti-microbial products etc.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

4WD and ploughing 8-12" deep is modern, before that ploughing would have been more like complete inversion min till.

Good point. Try ploughing even 9" deep with a horse pulling a 6" mouldboard!

 

[Northern territory]

Brothers Mark and John Snell, in their 30s, used to have a dairy herd, now they rear turkeys and pigs for Pipers Farm. Mark says most would like to farm regeneratively if they could, but warns there isn't "a hope in hell" of feeding the world on it.

I disagree with the statement that regenerative agriculture can't feed the world, so that fellow is saying that a system that destroys the soil (and the UN thinks will only give 60 more harvests before the topsoil has been lost) is a better system to feed the world than an agricultural system then cares for and improves the top soil? The comments I have highlighted really annoy me.

Although I agree with some of the principles of regen agriculture I think it is far fetched to say it will feed the world. The other bit that gets me is the likes of McCain’s promoting it. What a hypocritical lot they really are when they have driven many smaller potato growers out of business in the last 30 years. The problem wasn’t the plough, it was economics driving farming away from mixed diverse small farms, with grass leys, root crops etc. Big corporations only wanting to deal with fewer bigger farmers.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

It can feed the world if 75% of the worlds population dies.
Without fertiliser inputs crop yields will plumit.
Manures will work where they are available, but most farm nutrients go to cities and very little human sh!t is used in developed countries. Without the return of those nutrients we can not continue to keep our cur current yields without fertiliser.

Where do the principles of regenerative agriculture say "you can not use fertliser"? The organic farming system says not to use synthetic fertliser, regenerative agricultural principles are all about farming in a way that protects and enhances the soil.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Trouble is the city folk as so much dangerous stuff in to their sh!t that we don't want it on farms now: Synthetic hormones (contraceptives), micro-plastics, anti-microbial products etc.

I would not even dream of having sewage cake on the farm without all that stuff being taken out, I don't even know if it is possible to remove it? Or if it is, how much it would cost? Don't they monitor cocaine use by checking the waste water from cities?

 

[7610 super q]

Good point. Try ploughing even 9" deep with a horse pulling a 6" mouldboard!

Or trying to do a tidy job ploughing 3" deep with a modern plough.

 

[Sid]

Where do the principles of regenerative agriculture say "you can not use fertliser"? The organic farming system says not to use synthetic fertliser, regenerative agricultural principles are all about farming in a way that protects and enhances the soil.

20% of the world's food supply is rice.

How is that regen?

How does regen protect the soil whilst being so reliant on glyphosate?

Trouble is the city folk add so much dangerous stuff in to their sh!t that we don't want it on farms now: Synthetic hormones (contraceptives), micro-plastics, anti-microbial products etc.

And that's the issue, not the poo but everything else that once flushed is someone else's problem.

 

[Sid]

Or trying to do a tidy job ploughing 3" deep with a modern plough.

Ecomat I believe was made by Kverneland.

That's what we should be using.
Ploughing isn't bad, deep Ploughing is bad same as deep discing would be.

 

[gatepost]

Or trying to do a tidy job ploughing 3" deep with a modern plough.

That's half the problem, using what would have been classed as at least semi diggers on ground that isn't deep enough, up here a lot of sub soil and stones being bull dosed around, I know of 2 local farms that tried Howard square ploughs, total mess but egos have to be massaged .

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

The article was written in the style of countryfile and misses quite a few important points while hitting the nail on the head elsewhere.

As one of them said, the real problem is the low cost of food: the producers can't invest and the consumers throw it away. All because corporate food holds the price at the cost of production.

It's not so easy trying new ideas when you're only just in business with the tried and tested old ones.

 

[Sid]

Regen can still sit on the right of this picture

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

20% of the world's food supply is rice.

How is that regen?

How does regen protect the soil whilst being so reliant on glyphosate?


And that's the issue, not the poo but everything else that once flushed is someone else's problem.

Regenerative grazing farms don't need Glyphosate. Arable can be done without it too (blade rollers to terminate cover crops or graze them to terminate on a mixed unit). But there nothing in regenerative principles that outlaws using chemicals so long as they are the best tool in the circumstances. Its not about rigid rules, in fact they are the antithesis of it. Its about working with nature instead of fighting it, observing carefully and constantly adapting to mutual advantage. It just takes a lot more thought.

Anyone can apply a prescription. It takes an enlightened observer to do regenerative management well.

 

[Sid]

Regenerative grazing farms don't need Glyphosate. Arable can be done without it too (blade rollers to terminate cover crops or graze them to terminate on a mixed unit). But there nothing in regenerative principles that outlaws using chemicals so long as they are the best tool in the circumstances. Its not about rigid rules, in fact they are the antithesis of it. Its about working with nature instead of fighting it, observing carefully and constantly adapting to mutual advantage. It just takes a lot more thought.

Anyone can apply a prescription. It takes an enlightened observer to do regenerative management well.

There is no right or wrong, nothing that can't be done if needs be.
Just working with nature but being able to reach for the agro chemicals if need be.

So regen has no rules at all so you could call it just "farming"

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

20% of the world's food supply is rice.

How is that regen?

How does regen protect the soil whilst being so reliant on glyphosate?


And that's the issue, not the poo but everything else that once flushed is someone else's problem.

Basically it's between Glyphosate and cultivation. I happen to think that cultivation is the worse option.

Or you try new ideas to do away with both.

But going back to my earlier post, these ideas need subsidising from more profitable areas of the business in case they don't work. And without on farm trials and experiments, you end up going backwards, or relying on "trials and experiments" done by suppliers with their own best interests at heart, not yours or the consumer's.

 

[Northern territory]

Basically it's between Glyphosate and cultivation. I happen to think that cultivation is the worse option.

Or you try new ideas to do away with both.

But going back to my earlier post, these ideas need subsidising from more profitable areas of the business in case they don't work. And without on farm trials and experiments, you end up going backwards, or relying on "trials and experiments" done by suppliers with their own best interests at heart, not yours or the consumer's.

Why are we as an industry pitting one form of cultivation against another. The unwanted truth for many advocates of dd is that farmers who didn’t move away from diverse rotations with grazed cover crops, smaller machinery, less compaction have kept their soils more stable and productive.

 

[Gulli]

Basically it's between Glyphosate and cultivation. I happen to think that cultivation is the worse option.

Or you try new ideas to do away with both.

But going back to my earlier post, these ideas need subsidising from more profitable areas of the business in case they don't work. And without on farm trials and experiments, you end up going backwards, or relying on "trials and experiments" done by suppliers with their own best interests at heart, not yours or the consumer's.

It depends, it doesn't have to be a snap change from conventional to regen ag
We've just been changing a bit at a time.
Bit different on a livestock farm and moving to a more regenerative system isn't a big change here anyway

 

[Sid]

Basically it's between Glyphosate and cultivation. I happen to think that cultivation is the worse option.

Or you try new ideas to do away with both.

But going back to my earlier post, these ideas need subsidising from more profitable areas of the business in case they don't work. And without on farm trials and experiments, you end up going backwards, or relying on "trials and experiments" done by suppliers with their own best interests at heart, not yours or the consumer's.

Depends how you calculate the difference between weed cultivation and chemical spray production.

Many trials that can't "sell" you something just don't take place because the only beneficiary is the farmer rather than a multinational shareholder driven company

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Why are we as an industry pitting one form of cultivation against another. The unwanted truth for many advocates of dd is that farmers who didn’t move away from diverse rotations with grazed cover crops, smaller machinery, less compaction have kept their soils more stable and productive.

I would say that is a wanted truth.