Overthinking and overstating Regenerative Agriculture

[SilliamWhale]

I've been keen on the sustainable/ regenerative/ holistic type of ag however you label it for 25 years but I can't help but feel especially on twitter there is a bit of both overthinking and overstating it.

Crop production at its heart is really very simple. You put a seed in the ground and it grows. You need enough of the macronutrients for certain (however you get them) and although we know our N use is fundamentally inefficient we haven't got a scientific way of improving that yet.

But we seem to be getting into this weird world where it is considered "corporates" are producing fungicide or fertilisers for their own bloodthirsty aims alone, and small upstart biological suppliers are altruistic providers of "nutrition" held back by these big business.

I've always been pro environment but I find I'm starting to scratch my head at some of the fervour I read nowadays not least because it often extensively unproven and much of it irrational in the face of scientific rigour. Some of the stuff I've been reading is just bonkers - not because its out there in the first place but because its simply scientifically wrong and yet people seem to lapping this stuff up much of it is emporers new clothes.

The shtick for Regen ag often follows a well worn path of people sharing their "wisdom", or their "teachings", or "insights" which are not so easy to scrutinise.

Is it just because I'm over 40?

 

[CORK]

I've been keen on the sustainable/ regenerative/ holistic type of ag however you label it for 25 years but I can't help but feel especially on twitter there is a bit of both overthinking and overstating it.

Crop production at its heart is really very simple. You put a seed in the ground and it grows. You need enough of the macronutrients for certain (however you get them) and although we know our N use is fundamentally inefficient we haven't got a scientific way of improving that yet.

But we seem to be getting into this weird world where it is considered "corporates" are producing fungicide or fertilisers for their own bloodthirsty aims alone, and small upstart biological suppliers are altruistic providers of "nutrition" held back by these big business.

I've always been pro environment but I find I'm starting to scratch my head at some of the fervour I read nowadays not least because it often extensively unproven and much of it irrational in the face of scientific rigour. Some of the stuff I've been reading is just bonkers - not because its out there in the first place but because its simply scientifically wrong and yet people seem to lapping this stuff up much of it is emporers new clothes.

The shtick for Regen ag often follows a well worn path of people sharing their "wisdom", or their "teachings", or "insights" which are not so easy to scrutinise.

Is it just because I'm over 40?

Did you sneak into my house last night and scan the contents of my brain while I was asleep.....??

Only two days ago I used the story of the emporer when discussing the same topic with a friend...!

 

[fudge]

Capitalism for you, they will sell any old shyte. Perhaps this is why only the "paranoid" survive? Anyway lets give'm a clap.

 

[Brisel]

There's a lot of psychology deployed by the big corporates and they use it well. As a society we like soundbites and headlines. Twitter is the prime example with its restricted number of characters per Tweet. We want instant gratification and our busy minds don't always have the time or desire to dig deeper to find the truth. Too many books judged by their covers.

Concepts different to the "normal" require more thought and excellent communication to grab the attention of the observer. IMO most practitioners of regenerative ag have got there from something more established - a road to Damascus or just a more subtle inquisitive shift away from the high pressure sales pitch.

 

[fudge]

There's a lot of psychology deployed by the big corporates and they use it well. As a society we like soundbites and headlines. Twitter is the prime example with its restricted number of characters per Tweet. We want instant gratification and our busy minds don't always have the time or desire to dig deeper to find the truth. Too many books judged by their covers.

Concepts different to the "normal" require more thought and excellent communication to grab the attention of the observer. IMO most practitioners of regenerative ag have got there from something more established - a road to Damascus or just a more subtle inquisitive shift away from the high pressure sales pitch.

What cobblers. Busy minds? You must be joking, anyone who takes any notice of Twitter has lost the ability to think for themselves. In other words they are mindless.

 

[Brisel]

What cobblers. Busy minds? You must be joking, anyone who takes any notice of Twitter has lost the ability to think for themselves. In other words they are mindless.

There's irony for you! Where does TFF fit into your definition of mindlessness? Twatter is good at filtering stuff that you might want to see from the mass of junk that people of all tastes post. It's also extremely successful, more so than TFF.

 

[farenheit]

I think a lot of the regen agriculture types on twitter are just showing off. Basically, farming is so easy for them that they have decided to play it on 'hard mode' - all of the science that has made farming more productive and easy over the last one hundred years is all a capitalist con and the true, pure way of farming is growing heritage wheat with no sprays. Of course, nothing in farming is natural, otherwise we'd be eating berries.

The emperors new clothes analogy is quite good. There seems to be lots of expensive books that people buy, tweet a photo of the front cover, and then suddenly everyone is buying this book to make them enlightened about regenerative agriculture. I can't remember any of the books names off hand but I'll just create some: "The hell of the steel tine", "Roundup your dead", "The spray can folly", "Big farm, small brain"

 

[Ffermer Bach]

but I'll just create some: "The hell of the steel tine", I can remember a lecturer, Mike Hann (in the mid 80's, soil science lecturer at Rycotewood) saying the worst thing that ever happened to soil was the man doing the cultivating moving from behind the implement (horse drawn) where he could see what he was doing to soil structure, to in front of (tractor drawn) where he could just power through, so regenerative agriculture is not a new idea, just been refined and re-badged recently, I can also remember Mike talking about experiments he was undertaking at Silsoe to do with compaction and how it effects soil structure and life (and look how machines have got bigger since the 80's).

I think the way we are farming now is not sustainable in the longer term (thinking about soil erosion), however changes often take more than one lifetime of work to become apparent, so we never notice the differences.

 

[fudge]

There's irony for you! Where does TFF fit into your definition of mindlessness? Twatter is good at filtering stuff that you might want to see from the mass of junk that people of all tastes post. It's also extremely successful, more so than TFF.

Eh? TFF falls slap bang in the middle of the mindless category. Anyone who reads it knows that.

 

[SilliamWhale]

I think a lot of the regen agriculture types on twitter are just showing off. Basically, farming is so easy for them that they have decided to play it on 'hard mode' - all of the science that has made farming more productive and easy over the last one hundred years is all a capitalist con and the true, pure way of farming is growing heritage wheat with no sprays. Of course, nothing in farming is natural, otherwise we'd be eating berries.

The emperors new clothes analogy is quite good. There seems to be lots of expensive books that people buy, tweet a photo of the front cover, and then suddenly everyone is buying this book to make them enlightened about regenerative agriculture. I can't remember any of the books names off hand but I'll just create some: "The hell of the steel tine", "Roundup your dead", "The spray can folly", "Big farm, small brain"

Thing is I don't like soil tillage and I love no till and think its genuinely better way of producing crops. I've done the Holistic Management course and I think it totally stands up and makes sense as a management system. I know from practical experience that cover crops can be both heaven and hell depending on how you manage them etc. And I'd be quite happy to argue away my position on it all.

There's just a chunk of stuff I'm just at best sceptical of and at worst I know its down right disingenuous. Yet it seems hard to have a discussion about because the counter argument is either "the science hasn't caught up with it", or "biology is inherently hard to measure" (it can be but that shouldn't matter) or the worst one "the information has historically been suppressed by Big Ag". There is almost a perception that there are two versions of the truth, the big ag one and the real one and its just not a rational approach.

I do read plenty of books and will continue to read them (especially if free on kindle unlimited) but some of them need a damn good editor.

 

[SilliamWhale]

There's a lot of psychology deployed by the big corporates and they use it well. As a society we like soundbites and headlines. Twitter is the prime example with its restricted number of characters per Tweet. We want instant gratification and our busy minds don't always have the time or desire to dig deeper to find the truth. Too many books judged by their covers.

Concepts different to the "normal" require more thought and excellent communication to grab the attention of the observer. IMO most practitioners of regenerative ag have got there from something more established - a road to Damascus or just a more subtle inquisitive shift away from the high pressure sales pitch.

Sure, everyone wants to promote something I get that.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

There are zealots in all walks of life. Regenerative Agriculture has its fair share and they tend to be very loud at the moment.

The debate is getting very polarised, never a good thing, with the corporate agrochemicals industry seeing a potential risk and deploying the full tobacco defense playbook and the ReGen zealots playing the suppressed underdogs.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, as usual.

 

[Brisel]

Eh? TFF falls slap bang in the middle of the mindless category. Anyone who reads it knows that.

Not entirely - the Wreckers thread is always going to briefly satisfy a desire for quick amusement, but I've learned plenty in here too. You usually engage with the topic being discussed. Not all your answers are "cobblers."

There's some much information out there. Mostly cobblers or with a serious agenda but there's lost of good stuff too at the click of a mouse or tap on a screen.

 

[DRC]

I’ve always felt that those of us that have traditional mixed farms . Plenty of diversity in crops, plenty of muck and catch crops of things like stubble turnips , have been practicing the basics of this new regenerative movement anyway . And yet all of a sudden you get the wheat , rape , wheat boys, fields full of black grass , behaving as if they’ve re invented the wheel .
The supply companies are now all jumping on the band wagon , with multi species cover crops , when simple turnips or grass will do the job . Who knew that they needed things like Bersem clover or black oats to make your life complete .

 

[fudge]

Not entirely - the Wreckers thread is always going to briefly satisfy a desire for quick amusement, but I've learned plenty in here too. You usually engage with the topic being discussed. Not all your answers are "cobblers."

There's some much information out there. Mostly cobblers or with a serious agenda but there's lost of good stuff too at the click of a mouse or tap on a screen.

The wreckers thread is the most instructive on here, I will gladly exclude it from my mindless definition.

 

[Brisel]

I’ve always felt that those of us that have traditional mixed farms . Plenty of diversity in crops, plenty of muck and catch crops of things like stubble turnips , have been practicing the basics of this new regenerative movement anyway . And yet all of a sudden you get the wheat , rape , wheat boys, fields full of black grass , behaving as if they’ve re invented the wheel .
The supply companies are now all jumping on the band wagon , with multi species cover crops , when simple turnips or grass will do the job . Who knew that they needed things like Bersem clover or black oats to make your life complete .

God loves a repentant sinner or prodigal son!

 

[T Hectares]

My solution to Twitter is the same as my solution to FW....

Don’t engage with either !!


Some of the self absorbed crap I’ve seen from both reminds of the line in the Baz Luhrman “ sun screen “ song, “don’t read beauty magazines, you will only feel worthless “ - substitute twitter or FW for beauty magazine and that’s where I am !!

That’s what I do like about here, there’s lots of information around from knowledgeable posters who were doing it before it had a label and was trendy, movements and labels generally turn me off and I’m certainly not trendy !! I do like to learn and improve though...

 

[MrAgrologist]

I've been keen on the sustainable/ regenerative/ holistic type of ag however you label it for 25 years but I can't help but feel especially on twitter there is a bit of both overthinking and overstating it.

Crop production at its heart is really very simple. You put a seed in the ground and it grows. You need enough of the macronutrients for certain (however you get them) and although we know our N use is fundamentally inefficient we haven't got a scientific way of improving that yet.

But we seem to be getting into this weird world where it is considered "corporates" are producing fungicide or fertilisers for their own bloodthirsty aims alone, and small upstart biological suppliers are altruistic providers of "nutrition" held back by these big business.

I've always been pro environment but I find I'm starting to scratch my head at some of the fervour I read nowadays not least because it often extensively unproven and much of it irrational in the face of scientific rigour. Some of the stuff I've been reading is just bonkers - not because its out there in the first place but because its simply scientifically wrong and yet people seem to lapping this stuff up much of it is emporers new clothes.

The shtick for Regen ag often follows a well worn path of people sharing their "wisdom", or their "teachings", or "insights" which are not so easy to scrutinise.

Is it just because I'm over 40?

Absolutely spot on with these comments. Regen Ag was effectively practiced and dominated for years, along came population growth and it couldn’t keep pace with demand. Starvation threatened that drove innovation, entrepreneurs and scientists came together (as they always do) and industrial processes came up with solutions. As always you have to add context when considering and judging how the world has developed. The law of ‘the unintended consequence’ as always has its part to play which helps us refine a system and move on again. Today’s Regen

Ag should be allowed to be the hybrid of the system that was found wanting by way of not meeting demand (organic agriculture) with the intensive, industrialised systems that can meet demand but have far reaching unintended consequences by way of sustainability. This can and should still be based on sound science that can stand up to rigorous scrutiny and peer review.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Today’s Regen Ag should be allowed to be the hybrid of the system that was found wanting by way of not meeting demand (organic agriculture) with the intensive, industrialised systems that can meet demand but have far reaching unintended consequences by way of sustainability. This can and should still be based on sound science that can stand up to rigorous scrutiny and peer review.

I think the scrutiny thing isn't popular. There seems to be an idea that because its biological it is not measurable, or that somehow science is incapabale of interpreting things. Which is balls.

I can definititely see the ways of reducing our P and K and slowing up our soil pH. I can definitely see ways of reducing our fungicide use (not all fungicides are the same though) - although we may have to accept that there will be a cost to that sometimes. I just feel when you scrutinise some claims you are seen as being aggressive towards the concept.

 

[7610 super q]

The most successful of farmers IMO, are those doing exactly the same as their predecessors were doing 200 years ago, albeit using tractors instead of horses etc. Mixed farmers growing their own grain, feeding it to their own livestock, returning FYM back to the land.
We reached a peak of knowledge back in the 1960's / 70's when ADAS was at full stretch. Everything since has just been re inventing the wheel. I can't think of anything radicle in the last 40 years.