Overthinking and overstating Regenerative Agriculture

[ajd132]

For my own benefit, how does this work with royalties? It’s something I’m doing going forward and want to be right.

Seems to not only be me. Why I can’t I sweep stuff up and plant it for 6 weeks to look after soil?

 

[Try to succeed]

Seems to not only be me. Why I can’t I sweep stuff up and plant it for 6 weeks to look after soil?

Agree. I didn’t know if they’d found a way of getting something out of it yet.

 

[DRC]

Last year, home grown oats, home grown peas, home grown linseed, bought in phacelia. Didn’t grow well because it was too dry at planting, cheap though thankfully.
A few hours researching who sells what, can and does save thousands. A few hours with a cement mixer or feeder wagon and happy days. Selling cover crop mixes is like stealing sweeties from 4 yr olds.

It’s a bit like drills. Why do we need ever more expensive bits of kit to plant a seed that in nature, grows by being chucked on the ground. All the stuff out the back of the combine seems to grow , and when I’m sowing stubble turnips, I do a light disc and spread them with the fertiliser spinner and roll . Why don’t I do the same with untreated wheat or barley ?

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

It’s a bit like drills. Why do we need ever more expensive bits of kit to plant a seed that in nature, grows by being chucked on the ground. All the stuff out the back of the combine seems to grow , and when I’m sowing stubble turnips, I do a light disc and spread them with the fertiliser spinner and roll . Why don’t I do the same with untreated wheat or barley ?

Because then nobody is earning a living out of you! We have been taken for mugs by the input industries for decades.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Where there’s muck, there’s brass

Science finally unearths why soil carbon is so valuable

www.rothamsted.ac.uk

Well worth a read, especially for those who say there is no science to support the regenerative arguments.

"However, long term addition of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers has caused microbes to burn more of these carbon compounds for energy, an activity that has increased emissions of CO2.

Ploughing has also increased the availability of this soil carbon to microbes, further decreasing its levels in the soil.

As carbon stocks decline, less EPS is produced, and the soil loses the beneficial porous structure.

Not only does this hamper the soils’ ability to store and release water, it creates an oxygen poor environment where microbes must utilise nitrogen and sulphur compounds for energy instead.

This decreases the availability of these soil nutrients to plants and causes the production of nitrous oxide – another harmful greenhouse gas that also enhances ozone depletion."

 

[ajd132]

Where there’s muck, there’s brass

Science finally unearths why soil carbon is so valuable

www.rothamsted.ac.uk

Well worth a read, especially for those who say there is no science to support the regenerative arguments.

The science is definitely there. It’s just not as black and white as ‘x fungicide does Y increase in yield’.
Basically find ways to stimulate and grow the soil biology. This is why mixed farms are so successful in terms of soil health and reduced inputs. Constantly inoculating soil with beneficial microbes. We don’t have that in solely arable farms reliant on soluble fert and chemical. So we are trying to mimic it by growing cover crops, not disturbing the soil too much, companion cropping, any kind of manure addition. Root exudates are what build soil.

 

[SilliamWhale]

It’s a bit like drills. Why do we need ever more expensive bits of kit to plant a seed that in nature, grows by being chucked on the ground. All the stuff out the back of the combine seems to grow , and when I’m sowing stubble turnips, I do a light disc and spread them with the fertiliser spinner and roll . Why don’t I do the same with untreated wheat or barley ?

Well why don't you then?

 

[SilliamWhale]

Where there’s muck, there’s brass

Science finally unearths why soil carbon is so valuable

www.rothamsted.ac.uk

Well worth a read, especially for those who say there is no science to support the regenerative arguments.

"However, long term addition of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers has caused microbes to burn more of these carbon compounds for energy, an activity that has increased emissions of CO2.

Ploughing has also increased the availability of this soil carbon to microbes, further decreasing its levels in the soil.

As carbon stocks decline, less EPS is produced, and the soil loses the beneficial porous structure.

Not only does this hamper the soils’ ability to store and release water, it creates an oxygen poor environment where microbes must utilise nitrogen and sulphur compounds for energy instead.

This decreases the availability of these soil nutrients to plants and causes the production of nitrous oxide – another harmful greenhouse gas that also enhances ozone depletion."

I didn't say there was no science to the regenerative arguments. I'm saying that regen ag arguments tend to overreach themselves beyond scientific evidence.

 

[SilliamWhale]

The science is definitely there. It’s just not as black and white as ‘x fungicide does Y increase in yield’.
Basically find ways to stimulate and grow the soil biology. This is why mixed farms are so successful in terms of soil health and reduced inputs. Constantly inoculating soil with beneficial microbes. We don’t have that in solely arable farms reliant on soluble fert and chemical. So we are trying to mimic it by growing cover crops, not disturbing the soil too much, companion cropping, any kind of manure addition. Root exudates are what build soil.

I'm not sure there is any evidence a better soil biology gives you more Nitrogen in a non leguminous crop? I od believe a better biologically active soil (ie no tilled or grassland) gives you a lot of P efficiencies though

 

[ajd132]

I'm not sure there is any evidence a better soil biology gives you more Nitrogen in a non leguminous crop? I od believe a better biologically active soil (ie no tilled or grassland) gives you a lot of P efficiencies though

Better nue

 

[Bury the Trash]

.

Well why don't you then?

i do , its far simpler. far less complicated to think about.
peas are a challenge tho, little sods just wont bury very well, might try spreading them then v. shallow ploughing them in like we do w beans

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I didn't say there was no science to the regenerative arguments. I'm saying that regen ag arguments tend to overreach themselves beyond scientific evidence.

Agreed. It was a general comment, not specifically aimed at your post. I've lost count of the posts I've read on TFF and carrots FB groups saying there is no science to support regenerative agriculture.

I usually counter with a comment about how biased all the science supporting chemical input based agriculture is and how the trials with negative results are quietly hidden.

 

[martian]

Where there’s muck, there’s brass

Science finally unearths why soil carbon is so valuable

www.rothamsted.ac.uk

Well worth a read, especially for those who say there is no science to support the regenerative arguments.

"However, long term addition of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers has caused microbes to burn more of these carbon compounds for energy, an activity that has increased emissions of CO2.

Ploughing has also increased the availability of this soil carbon to microbes, further decreasing its levels in the soil.

As carbon stocks decline, less EPS is produced, and the soil loses the beneficial porous structure.

Not only does this hamper the soils’ ability to store and release water, it creates an oxygen poor environment where microbes must utilise nitrogen and sulphur compounds for energy instead.

This decreases the availability of these soil nutrients to plants and causes the production of nitrous oxide – another harmful greenhouse gas that also enhances ozone depletion."

Thanks for posting this link, it's really interesting that Rothamsted produced this work. They were founded with money from guano I think, and have pretty much promoted artificial fertiliser ever since. So it's lovely to see them investigate the damage that Nitrogen and Phosphorus fertilisers actually do to our soils. I like their comment that most people have no idea of what good soil is capable of doing, the vast majority of soils are degenerate.

This is what Regenerative Agriculture should be all about...regenerating our soils. That's what's in it for us farmers: making our soils better so we can grow stuff without having to pay for lots of inputs. It's also in the public's interest: soils that can absorb water and hold onto it will help prevent flooding, offset climate change, produce more nutritious food, make everyone happy...the list goes on and on. It's not something that will happen overnight, or in one season, but to embark on a regenerating pathway would seem to me to be the only sensible approach to running a farm. Of course there are loads of charlatans trying to make a quick buck...get over it, we have them in conventional agronomy.

 

[onesiedale]

I've been loaned this book. Just getting into it now. It was written 125 years ago based on work done in Roxburgh in the 1890's.
Somehow, I wish the guy was about to contribute to this forum!