I can't believe what I just read! BBC

[Sid]

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

Basically you have been conned out of buying stuff you didn't really need for years.

Many years ago I had my leg pulled about being organic.

What you going to do about docks, thistles and nettles. You can't spray them, you'll have them in every field.
What do you do I asked, spray them came the reply, and you only have to do that once and they are all gone I asked? Silence.
Fast forward 20 years, drive past their fields now and they still have as many as I do. But I haven't spray year in year out for them.

 

[som farmer]

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"

the new word, intelligent farming.

 

[Sid]

Regenerative grazing farms don't need Glyphosate

From what I have seen with various posters it's glyphosate and drill and spray for weeds with dd
More reliance on chemicals than with mintill or ploughing

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

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

I was looking for the carbon cost of glyphosate and found this.

Should farmers be forced to stop using glyphosate, and revert to more tilling as their method of weed control, the prospects of increases in fuel use, reduced sequestration of soil organic matter, increased nutrient leeching, and increase in emissions would be significant.

 

[Sid]

I was looking for the carbon cost of glyphosate and found this.

Should farmers be forced to stop using glyphosate, and revert to more tilling as their method of weed control, the prospects of increases in fuel use, reduced sequestration of soil organic matter, increased nutrient leeching, and increase in emissions would be significant.

Said the company selling glyphosate?

 

[Nearly]

Said the company selling glyphosate?

Everyone is 'selling' something. It's nice to work out what you can do without.

 

[Northern territory]

Everyone is 'selling' something. It's nice to work out what you can do without.

Most farmers should be doing that anyway

 

[Sid]

Everyone is 'selling' something. It's nice to work out what you can do without.

That's the point not everyone is, some are selling their "expertise" be that a fellow farmer or an advisor. Your paying to learn from the farmers mistakes or from the advisor paying to goto these farmers gleaning the knowledge and then selling it to you.

That's where discussion groups come into play where you learn for free rather than paying a so called expert to stand infront of you.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Said the company selling glyphosate?

In my case it's says the man who doesn't want to cultivate.

 

[bluebell]

in an ideal world farming in the UK would be mixed farming, that is farms that at the moment that have no livestock would have livestock? the land would greatly benifit from the muck and the rotation of crops, to grass and back again the livestock would also benifit any land thats been grazed yearly like mine has built up a worming burden? I said in an ideal world but that world dosnt exist? why did these farms pack up keeping livestock, number one, livestock mean alot more work and worry, everyone today wants an easier life?

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

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"

Regen has principles, not rules. That's why a certification scheme is such a problem. A farmer could breach at least one of any defined set of "regenerative rules" and still be regenerative if it was done for the right reason. Equally a farmer could apply the letter of every rule and not be regenerative because they are not adapting properly to the needs and processes of their particular farm at that time.

This is why the change in approach, "mindset" if you like, has to come first. Without that you'll never be genuinely regenerative except, possibly, for a short while by accident.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

in an ideal world farming in the UK would be mixed farming, that is farms that at the moment that have no livestock would have livestock? the land would greatly benifit from the muck and the rotation of crops, to grass and back again the livestock would also benifit any land thats been grazed yearly like mine has built up a worming burden? I said in an ideal world but that world dosnt exist? why did these farms pack up keeping livestock, number one, livestock mean alot more work and worry, everyone today wants an easier life?

To do it now also requires re- establishing all the lost livestock infrastructure: markets, abattoirs, suppliers, vets etc.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

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

Apparently what happens is that they start a trial and if they don't see a commercial advantage, the trial is abandoned. Which means that the only trials published are to the advantage of the trade rather than the farmer, who is kept in the dark about all the trials that would reduce spend and increase on-farm performance.

So those of us doing stupid things to see if they work really ought to be more vocal about it. The trouble is not all of the findings are that inspiring.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

To do it now also requires re- establishing all the lost livestock infrastructure: markets, abattoirs, suppliers, vets etc.

Still worth doing.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

From what I have seen with various posters it's glyphosate and drill and spray for weeds with dd
More reliance on chemicals than with mintill or ploughing

But it doesn't have to be if folk are willing to try other approaches.

Some make it work without, some don't.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Apparently what happens is that they start a trial and if they don't see a commercial advantage, the trial is abandoned. Which means that the only trials published are to the advantage of the trade rather than the farmer, who is kept in the dark about all the trials that would reduce spend and increase on-farm performance.

So those of us doing stupid things to see if they work really ought to be more vocal about it. The trouble is not all of the findings are that inspiring.

And the main farming press are part of that problem as its those same companies that fund them.

DEFRA have swallowed their lies and half truths as well in most cases when it's actually DEFRA that should be funding genuinely independent studies.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

So those of us doing stupid things to see if they work really ought to be more vocal about it. The trouble is not all of the findings are that inspiring.

I do try to be (more vocal, not just stupid).

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

That's the point not everyone is, some are selling their "expertise" be that a fellow farmer or an advisor. Your paying to learn from the farmers mistakes or from the advisor paying to goto these farmers gleaning the knowledge and then selling it to you.

That's where discussion groups come into play where you learn for free rather than paying a so called expert to stand infront of you.

Absolutely.

ELMS should be based on peer to peer advice, not commercial advice.

 

[Cowabunga]

Traditional farming as in the pre-1940's, great grandfather's era, has died out for the most part because it is not financially competitive or viable, especially where a farmer has debts to service, like paying rent or a mortgage. Organic is and always will be a niche market and absolutely needs to be to raise a premium price for the producer. The bulk of the population have no desire to spend more on food than they have to and if 'traditional' farming was forced on the majority of UK farmers, the price premium would disappear completely and UK farmers would be at a severe competitive disadvantage against imported much cheaper food. Even with current most efficient UK farming methods in the livestock sector, which is a very high proportion of UK agriculture, we are likely to face severe competition from imports and non-farmed alternatives in coming years. That's with only one hand tied behind our backs, never mind both hands and a blindfold applied.

 

[milkloss]

The reason I thought it was good is because it paints farmers in a caring and responsible light. All this debate about 'regen' farming, or whatever is the thing to say, is a step backwards. Why would you want to give it a label, try and quantify it and give it some sort of set of parameters to attempt to prove what your doing? Sounds like RT2 to me.

Best just roll with it and start a campaign to show how British farmers do care for the environment, their livestock, pesticide use etc etc. Call it regen if you like...... I just call it doing what I do.