SilliamWhale
Member
I don't think that's true at all. We've made tremendous technological progress
Overthinking and overstating Regenerative Agriculture
- Thread starter SilliamWhale
- Start date
I don't think that's true at all. We've made tremendous technological progress
We've added electrics to everything, yes. But we're still using tractors. Drills. Combines. Chems. Fertilizers. Yields no better than in the mid 80's. What's new ? I can't think of anything that's game changing.
MrAgrologist
Member
Biology is a tricky one to measure as still so much we don't understand whereas chemical reactions (chemistry), physics (mathematics) are so much easier to equate. Put them all together with geology, geography and you do have a very complex, unpredictable system = agriculture - simply the most unique combined science.
SilliamWhale
Member
Biology per se may be tricky to measure but the results aren't.
SilliamWhale
Member
MrAgrologist
Member
The dwarfing gene that moved the harvest index from 30% in wheat to 50% is probably the single biggest contributor to the yield gain. We shouldn't ignore the fact that reduced input systems / organics perform relatively well as they are shielded by contemporary agriculture preventing mass disease and pest outbreaks. It would be an interesting model to build as to what is the optimum mosaic of conventional, organic, regen ag that gives a resilient but sustainable outcome.
MrAgrologist
Member
absolutely, results dead easy to measure but it is the predictability and repeatability that is the hard bit because we lack the understanding of how some biological system's work
Quote ..' An interesting model to build' yet another fanciful bit of prose, how about just calling it common sense, which less and less people seem to have these days.
MrAgrologist
Member
to quote 'fanciful bit of prose' - why do we have to have this type of response ? it is utter nonsense, serves no purpose and exactly why I rarely post, and will eventually I suspect leave the world of social media to those that enjoy this style - not for me, just like a good reasoned discussion.
- Location
- Quebec, Canada
Not even the prices farmers get
- Location
- Bedfordshire
Another potentially good thread spoiled too soon.
Most threads not worth reading beyond the 3rd page anyway, with a few notable exceptions.
Most threads not worth reading beyond the 3rd page anyway, with a few notable exceptions.
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
At the heart of it all lies one truth - there is f**k all "regenerative" about annually cropping land for cereals, no matter how it's done, or what it's used for.
Sustainable, perhaps.... regenerative, unlikely.
Not from a living systems approach, and not because of what happens on the farms - the system it feeds makes a "regeneratively produced" commodity a paradox.
Similarly, as we're more involved with the grazing sector, you'd see literally hundreds of "regenerative grazing" operations who are basically mining their own soil instead of some little birdshit island.
The supermarkets and supply chain in the middle ensures little mutualism exists, so by design it's a mechanistic, prescriptive production system.
Few of them actually understand what regenerative is, they're practicing restorative agriculture; a less input-driven production system, but it's much the same as a conventional ranch or farm.
Permaculture style operations are closer to regenerative, because they tend to forget about how much they can sell and focus on what they can make.
Sustainable, perhaps.... regenerative, unlikely.
Not from a living systems approach, and not because of what happens on the farms - the system it feeds makes a "regeneratively produced" commodity a paradox.
Similarly, as we're more involved with the grazing sector, you'd see literally hundreds of "regenerative grazing" operations who are basically mining their own soil instead of some little birdshit island.
The supermarkets and supply chain in the middle ensures little mutualism exists, so by design it's a mechanistic, prescriptive production system.
Few of them actually understand what regenerative is, they're practicing restorative agriculture; a less input-driven production system, but it's much the same as a conventional ranch or farm.
Permaculture style operations are closer to regenerative, because they tend to forget about how much they can sell and focus on what they can make.
CORK
Member
- Location
- East Cork, Ireland
Let’s keep it going, I’ll contribute when I’ve something useful to say.
shakerator
Member
- Location
- LINCS
Not so common then
Maybe not i guess but there are still plenty of 'ordinary' farmers who use the best of all methods it doesn't have to be glammed up by going to extremes and fancy names / tag lines , surely.Not so common then
which is part of what i took the op to mean.
The problem is as it has become more mainstream and accepted thinking many more jump on the band wagon and then naturally start looking for the commercial or personal angle
I do feel a lot of people are over complicating things now and doing a lot of stuff they "think" seems right with companion crops and bacteria potions etc without any real hard proof. The essences of KISS farming gets lost at that point if not very careful
Shunning all synthetic inputs and any cultivation ever is not the solution, I have always seen what I am trying to achieve here as a fusion of conventional latest technology with organic and good old fashioned knowledge and thinking thrown in and used in combination with a greater appreciation of soil health being key to environmental, productivity and financial security in the future
It would be extremely naive and misguided to think that just because the likes of BASF, Baye, Yara etc dare to make money they have nothing to offer us ! yet a bloke who knocked up a bit of bacteria stuff in a shed has a better solution ! ........ truth is ALL the tools available should be considered and used where and when appropriate
It's working for us but I do fear for the overall direction things are moving somedays
Last edited:
- Location
- Lincolnshire.
That’s the thing though social media if full of shyte because it’s merely another platform for flogging stuff one doesn’t need.
What exactly has spoiled it ? Maybe it should have been posted in the " special " little section, which most folks don't bother with.
I basically want to be less beholden To the big multi nation and being reliant on bought in inputs. Do as much as we can without them and see how far we can push it.
Ive seen for myself what what things like companion cropping and cover cropping can add very cheaply.
I’m under no illusion that we can suddenly drop everything and it will be perfect.
But fertiliser and pesticides are very expensive, so anything I can do that costs much less and reduces what I spend on them has to be a good thing.
20th century agriculture is not the pinnacle and has basically revolved around buying your answers to problems.
Ive seen for myself what what things like companion cropping and cover cropping can add very cheaply.
I’m under no illusion that we can suddenly drop everything and it will be perfect.
But fertiliser and pesticides are very expensive, so anything I can do that costs much less and reduces what I spend on them has to be a good thing.
20th century agriculture is not the pinnacle and has basically revolved around buying your answers to problems.
of course not much exists unless there is money to make it happen....... tis simply the way of the world
However I would say social media is by far the most independent form of knowledge transfer you are going to find - the vast majority is farmer to farm with no agenda at all, magazines, shows, seminars etc can not do that unless they either charge membership fees (even then many big farming organzine are still commercials influenced if yo dig deep enough / look hard enough)
TFF obviously has many paying advertisers but I can promise you they NEVER have any editorial or moderation favour