Proving regenerative agriculture is working

[Samcowman]

Doing a bit of homework for a course tonight and have come up a bit stumped with this question.
How can you prove regenerative agriculture is actually working?
My thoughts are production results along with soil analysis.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Do they say proving something is either qualitative or quantitative ie, you either do like a double blind trial (eg for medicines with a placebo) or you observe what is happening to a population and try to explain from that. I think some things can't be double blind because of ethical reasons so we have to observe things

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Gabe Browns book gives a lot of explanations

 

[Kiwi Pete]

What is "working", to you?

RA is pretty loosely defined, but for me it's mainly about "growth of the soil biome" "being less reliant" "teaching land stewardship" which is demonstrably achievable; and easier to achieve if you focus on more of the R and less of the A.

It's possibly an easier compare if you look at the problem backwards: we can see that Degenerative Agriculture isn't working, so doing less of that "works" better?

The real proof lies in history; before the big horsepower engines, the big AgChem companies, and the big push to overproduce - things worked out well for farmers.
There weren't the tools to extract more than the land could provide - no MOP, no urea, none of that.
Now we've sold out much of the soil's latent fertility the cracks have become apparent, once again the answer is obvious - just stop doing that!

Plenty of these "good luck stories" abound, contrasting nicely with the tales of woe on here

 

[Farmer Roy]

Which Grazing System? - Resource Consulting Services

A sure-fire way to spice up a barbeque debate is to state your opinion on ‘cell grazing’. A lot of money has been invested in research to determine which grazing system is best. Unfortunately, the research is flawed with regards to giving us good, commercial information that is relevant to what graz

www.rcsaustralia.com.au

 

[Farmer Roy]

Compare that to this article

there are lots of people who are aiming to prove regen ag ( that’s a very loose term - personally I don’t like “boxes”. RA is different for everyone ) doesn’t work.
Even “fair” trials may not use the correct methodology . . .

from what I’ve read, heard & seen - you’ll know . . .

Why farmers should avoid magic and opt for science

Comment: Too much attention is placed on fads say agribusiness consultants, Phil Holmes and Ian McLean.

www.farmonline.com.au

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Compare that to this article

there are lots of people who are aiming to prove regen ag ( that’s a very loose term - personally I don’t like “boxes”. RA is different for everyone ) doesn’t work.
Even “fair” trials may not use the correct methodology . . .

from what I’ve read, heard & seen - you’ll know . . .

Why farmers should avoid magic and opt for science

Comment: Too much attention is placed on fads say agribusiness consultants, Phil Holmes and Ian McLean.

www.farmonline.com.au

You put that so much better than I did, the real guts of RA is adherence to those "5 basic principles", and they all must work (otherwise there would be no 'soil' on the planet).
So our success lies in our implementation, I won't need to tell you that it doesn't "work" without some water... but you do have to have goals to measure progress by.

 

[Samcowman]

Thanks guys.
As Pete said sticking to the principles will do it but if you cant prove that you are increasing soil organic matter and therefore carbon as well as producing enough food and doing it profitably then you will get shouted down by the negatives for not being able to back up your claims.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Soil Carbon stocks are very simply the sum of
(Cin) - (Cout) over time, it's no more an indication of true soil health than working out the health of a cow by saying it's eating more than its pooping out

The real goals should likely be about how well it (soil) deals with what's thrown at it, eg heavy rain, drought, non-ideal growing conditions - which is why the true benefit of the Regen Ag /HM movement isn't really jumping out at the statisticians and lab-coat wearers.

To prove RA doesn't work, they have to prove nature doesn't work, which is an interesting thing to observe "intelligent people" attempting to do.

 

[martian]

If you need any help with your homework tonight, Sam, just say. It's a much easier question...you just need to read KP's thread 'Improving our lot' and all will be revealed

 

[Samcowman]

Quick update. The answer we got was that the proof that it’s working in a grazing situation is the number of animal days per acre

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Quick update. The answer we got was that the proof that it’s working in a grazing situation is the number of animal days per acre

Interesting... this is why I asked what is "working"?

Plenty of regenerative farmers yet to graze any livestock, although that can/will make it work better/faster

My definition of "whether RA works" is whether my kids think ranching is fun enough to want to take it over in 15 years, and whether they believe they can make it pay as a business (going on what we can demonstrate to them).

Others will be more set on Carbon sequestration, or making water more effective, being profitable... it's a broad brush.

In answer to your question I'd have to paraphrase Gabe Brown a little;
"Do we have the highest carrying capacity in the district, no.
Are we the most profitable per hectare, I believe that we are."
Farmers are generally in a stage of denial and self-deception, everyone is making money, many are spending all that they make.

As I quoted from a Kit Pharo video, "commodity production by definition is a break-even business" and so the real proof of "working" is whether I'll still be in the game in 20 years time, or not.

Fuel prices and what herbicides I'm still allowed to use won't alter that.

 

[Samcowman]

Interesting... this is why I asked what is "working"?

Plenty of regenerative farmers yet to graze any livestock, although that can/will make it work better/faster

My definition of "whether RA works" is whether my kids think ranching is fun enough to want to take it over in 15 years, and whether they believe they can make it pay as a business (going on what we can demonstrate to them).

Others will be more set on Carbon sequestration, or making water more effective, being profitable... it's a broad brush.

In answer to your question I'd have to paraphrase Gabe Brown a little;
"Do we have the highest carrying capacity in the district, no.
Are we the most profitable per hectare, I believe that we are."
Farmers are generally in a stage of denial and self-deception, everyone is making money, many are spending all that they make.

As I quoted from a Kit Pharo video, "commodity production by definition is a break-even business" and so the real proof of "working" is whether I'll still be in the game in 20 years time, or not.

Fuel prices and what herbicides I'm still allowed to use won't alter that.

It all depends on what your goals are really to whether it’s working. For you whether you are still doing it in 20 years. For most it would be increasing profitability which is directly affected by soil health which would in turn lead to more carrying capacity from the land.
After doing the course the way forward has become less murky.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

It all depends on what your goals are really to whether it’s working. For you whether you are still doing it in 20 years. For most it would be increasing profitability which is directly affected by soil health which would in turn lead to more carrying capacity from the land.
After doing the course the way forward has become less murky.

Profit will take care of itself if the social, environmental, and economic considerations are all addressed together - for every decision we make in life.
It cannot be otherwise, unless mistakes are made somewhere, such as "living beyond our means", or managing our land in a way nature opposes (think, reducing complexity and diversity via applying biocides, getting the plough out because the weed grasses are back).
This approach to management will never be sustainable, the intriguing thing is that some still believe it will all come right with technology, or new chemicals, or different techniques.
It will not.

Thus the truest answer I can give is that yes, regenerative agriculture works better than normal agriculture, it is perhaps more efficient overall because of the huge input requirement being decreased; but if it is still "agriculture" deep down, then it isn't a silver bullet at all.

We can't fix problems via the same thinking that created the problems.... but our governments are trying!

Rewilding and letting rich people die of hunger is better for the environment as a whole, growing/harvesting your food together as a family/community is better for the social aspect, and raping a fresh piece of land can be just as economically viable as regenerating a degraded bit....