Regenerative agronomy

[Renaultman]

Funnily enough, we are just setting up Groundswell Agronomy, as so many people who come to the Groundswell Show, go home full of ideas and inspiration and flounder about a bit when it comes to putting them into practice (or Dad says 'no').

The idea is that we won't be selling anything bar advice, which should be about your whole system, rotations, crops, timings, animals (livestock and wildlife) etc etc. The aim would be, like any half-decent shrink, to do ourselves out of business in a few years, ie hold your hand whilst you introduce regenerative practices, like stopping cultivations or introducing livestock into the arable rotation; then, after a few years when you've taken back control of your own farm, you kick us out.

I really struggled with trying to manage no-till and a mainstream agronomist c/w a massive chemical bill. Booting him out and getting someone sensible transformed the job, but it takes a while to learn which chemicals (if any) you really need to deal with specific problems. We need to devote more time to understanding weeds, pests and diseases and what they are really telling us and not just reaching for a chemical bottle to treat the symptoms of disorder.

Is there a market for this service?

Also in response to OP
I think all agronomists should be looking at similar to Martian but many aren't.
We as farmers would have to agree to pay more for the service as this would be their only income or the main of it, if they are doing their job right.

 

[Chris F]

They have to be very careful on this. Only takes a ten minute drive and I'll show you several heaps of "bio fert" aka sewage sludge piled too close to watercourses / over main drains / same place as last year. No doubt some third party would cop it, but I'd be less sure about N tax than other anti pollution nonsense that's in the pipeline.

you are thinking of pollution the wrong way round to what I meant. Yes over use of nitrogen can pollute waterways. But I meant the pollution caused creating the synthetic N. That can’t be denied. And is easy to calculate tax.

The offset in that it grows more crop can be taken into account. But I doubt it is enough.

Interesting it is believed some crop protection products are carbon negative due to “saving” crops.

 

[teslacoils]

you are thinking of pollution the wrong way round to what I meant. Yes over use of nitrogen can pollute waterways. But I meant the pollution caused creating the synthetic N. That can’t be denied. And is easy to calculate tax.

The offset in that it grows more crop can be taken into account. But I doubt it is enough.

Interesting it is believed some crop protection products are carbon negative due to “saving” crops.

They won't touch it. Until they tax aviation fuel they won't touch North sea gas.

 

[Chris F]

They won't touch it. Until they tax aviation fuel they won't touch North sea gas.

That would be the sensible deduction. However I think the aviation bodies have slightly more sway over the government than farmers do.

Hope you are right though.

 

[farmerm]

No, I haven’t seen that study. Seriously, how achievable is reducing nitrates to that level? If we stopped applying all manufactured nitrogen today we wouldn’t drop levels in water for 50+ years.

Is nitrate more likely to cause cancer than glyphosate?

We would need to stop growing clover and pulses too...

 

[teslacoils]

That would be the sensible deduction. However I think the aviation bodies have slightly more sway over the government than farmers do.

Hope you are right though.

Can't see how they can do it. Tax nitram? Tax all imported fert? Have merchants slap on a tax a point of sale? Aviation demand is inelastic. Couple of quid on a flight will make no difference. There is limited scope for adding or increasing any taxes at the moment.

 

[Brisel]

We would need to stop growing clover and pulses too...

and using manures, slurry, digestate, compost, sewage cake. Don't forget all cultivation mineralises N. That's not going to happen.

 

[Hindsight]

Can't see how they can do it. Tax nitram? Tax all imported fert? Have merchants slap on a tax a point of sale? Aviation demand is inelastic. Couple of quid on a flight will make no difference. There is limited scope for adding or increasing any taxes at the moment.

No I think applying a tax would be quite straightforward. For imports levy the shipper and for domestic production the manufacturer - so really only a few businesses to collect the tax.

If you cast your mind back to the days of Gordon Brown's government a pesticide tax was considered and which led inadvertently to NRoSO and Voluntary Initiative. A tax on Nitrogen was also considered in the mid 2000's. All a tax does is intended to influence usage against market direction.

The logical response of a tax can be computed, always assuming farmers follow economic logic, by adjusting the optimum rate of Nitrogen in RB209 using the charts with differing wheat price and N price.

 

[teslacoils]

Straightforward it may seem....until the lawyers start. In two weeks it won't be a case of just tax it - you'll have us and EU shippers who will say you only get a deal if you remove the tax. "Free trade" means you don't get to twaat about with these spaztard little ideas.

 

[Hindsight]

Straightforward it may seem....until the lawyers start. In two weeks it won't be a case of just tax it - you'll have us and EU shippers who will say you only get a deal if you remove the tax. "Free trade" means you don't get to twaat about with these spaztard little ideas.

Maybe. But if a domestic UK tax disadvantages domestic producers compared to potential exporting nations why would the exporting nations disagree? You and other UK farmers might and would no doubt disagree - but that would be a domestic matter, so be UK agriculture versus UK public opinion / UK government policy.

Classic case there of UK government having 'taken back control'. No CAP and EU to protect UK farmers with a 'level playing field'?

 

[teslacoils]

Given UK pee poor productivity, fert tax is the least of their worries. There will be work arounds as usual. Not that it would do anything to my plans. They can't even build a train track or buy a submarine, so anything they do will have loopholes so large as to be pointless. They may as well write the loopholes in red pen, and flag them up for us. Then they can say they have legislated but craftily nothing changes.

 

[Warnesworth]

Hell yes.

Will it be targeted at arable units or cover livestock as well?

I think it's time we set up local/regional "Regen Ag" discussion groups, possibly under the umbrella of your initiative, where current practitioners can meet to share experiences (especially failures) and arrange farm walks. Those interested in starting out could then use these as local support groups.

I think this already exists, in the form of BASE UK
www.base-uk.co.uk

 

[Warnesworth]

This is the route I think I’m going down. I’ve got quite hung up on micro nutrition and biologicals/innoculants the last few years but I think that’s all a waste of time really, especially with the way farming is heading in terms of profit. The soil is the only focus and from that the results should come. Getting better N use efficiency from more active soil is going to pay far more than any of the other stuff.

You're correct @ajd132 the soil is a major focus, but you need to remember that it's not alchemy,it cannot conjure something from nothing. So much soil analysis that I look at shows that years of cropping have depleted some minerals to the point of exhaustion. Repairing the biological function of the soil is correct, but it will not correct a deficiency if it exists....

If you want increased N use efficiency you need to ensure the crop is not short of the other 17 or so essential elements

 

[Brisel]

Just because the elements are there doesn't mean they are available...

 

[ajd132]

Just because the elements are there doesn't mean they are available...

I’ve done the whole sap testing a micronutrient thing and all we get is sometimes low mn and Mg but it depends on the time of day. Im not convinced topping up at every t timing does anything.
It’s very easy to get carried away with this kind of thing and before you know it you’ve spent £40/ha

 

[teslacoils]

It's guilding the lily. Spend more in testing, consultants, snake oil, compost tea, crystals, chakras etc and no additional £££ left over.

 

[Brisel]

I'd rather spend £40/ha on building a library of tissue test results year on year, then you will get a good picture of what your crops need. My manganese levels are all over the place but K, B and Cu consistently show as low in wheat & osr. I'm doing spring barley and spring oats too this year. I've avoided them before as they rush through growth stages so quickly and correcting one deficiency with one spray needs 3 weeks before sampling again by which time I need the results so quickly to fit with adding something to the next sprayer pass. I intend to do post harvest samples too, as a retrospective look at what was missing in the end. Just don't spend too much on it as it's only a snapshot in time and has many influencing factors, not least H2O deficiency!

 

[teslacoils]

Tbh I've tissue and soil tested for years and know what will be short at what time. But all attempts at fixing deficiencies through soil application or foliars have failed to do more than cover their costs. Even adding muck, slurry etc and using fibrophos rather than bagged has not changed the fact that my potash releasing clay does not not get enough k into the plant if that's are to be believed.

 

[Brisel]

Biology and a secondary (AMF) root system will help that availability. Maybe some fresh potash too?

 

[Simon C]

Just because the elements are there doesn't mean they are available...

Just because the elements are not available doesn't mean they are not there.