4WD and ploughing 8-12" deep is modern, before that ploughing would have been more like complete inversion min till.The plough has been the primary cultivation tool throughout the world for millennia. The BBC seem to think it a modern invention!!
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.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.
Good point. Try ploughing even 9" deep with a horse pulling a 6" mouldboard!4WD and ploughing 8-12" deep is modern, before that ploughing would have been more like complete inversion min till.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
Or trying to do a tidy job ploughing 3" deep with a modern plough.Good point. Try ploughing even 9" deep with a horse pulling a 6" mouldboard!
20% of the world's food supply is rice.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.
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.
Ecomat I believe was made by Kverneland.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 .Or trying to do a tidy job ploughing 3" deep with a modern plough.
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.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.
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.
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.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 agBasically 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.
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.
I would say that is a wanted truth.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.