Perspective: Changing the trajectory of modern agriculture

Article Courtesy of AGDAILY (see original article here)

By Jon Stika

February 04, 2021

Money talks, and what producers spend their money on drives modern agriculture. Producers purchase inputs based on what they feel are the needs of their soil and crops. They determine those needs by sampling and testing both soil and plants, studying yield maps, personal experience, plant-tissue testing, and other current technologies to fine tune their systems of crop production. This is all based on time-tested methods that match inputs to a crop yield response. A proven process of successful soil and plant management.

Or is it?

Depending upon the health of a given soil, the need for producer-purchased inputs can vary dramatically. Healthy, functioning soils require a fraction of the inputs of dysfunctional soil. Our current revered process of soil and plant management was developed around dysfunctional soil and the corresponding inputs that will generate yields on those dysfunctional soils.

Think about it. By the time modern input-based agronomy (built on soil testing and fertilizer applications to achieve a given yield response) was developed, the soils we were testing had already been severely degraded by decades of tillage and erosion.

As a result, we have for some time regarded dysfunctional soil as “normal.” If a person is unhealthy, we seek to restore them to full health and capacity to function. If the engine in a tractor is running poorly, we seek to restore it to full horsepower. When something is not functioning to its full potential, we refer back to the source of how that thing was originally designed to function in order to restore it. Except for the soil. We continue to overlook poorly functioning soil as a problem because we have come to accept it in its current state of disrepair. We have since built all of our agronomic practices around that standard of dysfunctional soil. Because we have not recognized the need to restore the capacity of the soil to function, it continues to decline, requiring ever-increasing inputs to make up the difference.

Because the paradigm of managing dysfunctional soil by applying inputs has enveloped the entirety of agriculture, it seems that no one can see the way out. Without a great awakening and corresponding paradigm shift, the insidious decline of our soil and rural economies will continue. Because most producers are ignorant of how fully functioning soil should perform, the paradigm persists.

Agricultural research in the interest of helping producers is currently focused on managing dysfunctional soil with inputs, often funded by an agricultural industry that sells those inputs to farmers. So, the paradigm persists, with producers footing the bill as they try to prop up soils that continue to decline. Regrettably, this is a death spiral for farmers. Some will get bigger before they get out, but the downward spiral is the same.

While the current systems of modern agronomy strive to satisfy the demands of producers to meet their crop yield goals, only a small minority of producers are aware that restoring their soils to a higher level of functionality is the real issue they face if they are to stay in business.

Those few enlightened producers are working their way toward a goal of restoring the capacity of their soils to function while becoming more profitable at the same time. Crop yield has never been a good metric for success. Profitability, while restoring soil health, might be a better way to measure success in agriculture.

I believe that an awakening of the urgent need to restore our soils must come from producers. It is producers that determine where the money will flow; not only to produce each crop, but for research that will help them restore their soil and become more profitable. I encourage producers to begin, or continue, to educate themselves on restoring the health of their soils, then set themselves on a path that will make it happen. What they spend their money on to achieve a restoration of both their soil and their profits will hopefully bring the folks in agricultural research and industry along that same path as well.

Courtesy of AGDAILY (see original article here)

Read More

Regenerative agriculture – an idea 12 000 years in the making

https://omny.fm/shows/the-money-show/business-unusual-regenerative-agriculture

If you had to think about what is needed on a modern farm, you would think ploughs, fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation and the best developed seeds.

The advent of industrial farming has seen the items above become central to a successful farm looking to maximise yield. 

If you can pay for all the input costs you can get the rewards come harvest time. That is assuming the prices are good and the weather gods were favourable. 

Despite decades refining the process of extraction, we have reached the point where farmers are constantly at risk of not earning enough to pay the bills for all the input costs.

Read More

Living an irony in uncharted territory: When a bountiful maize harvest co-exists with hunger

Article Courtesy Of Daily Maverick

The irony of widespread reports of lockdown-related hunger, is that South Africa is experiencing one of its best-ever maize harvests.

As the reality of the catastrophic way in which the Covid-19 pandemic is being managed by the powers that be slowly sinks in, we realise that we’ve become the first people ever to put a stop to an entire, worldwide, economic system and everything else that is involved. Nations, several million strong, have willingly surrendered civil liberties long fought for with blood, sweat and tears. 

With load shedding Stage 6 a minor blip in the distant past, welcome to Offload100 (DBT) – the 100% offload of both the local and global economy. With no historic reference point, this is uncharted territory on a global scale. 

We are in a time that can be compared to a land marked on an ancient map by a DBT inscription (“Dragons Be There”), suggesting that beyond a known frontier, there might be dragons. This is an area saturated with unknowable unknowns: welcome to the new normal.

With Offload100 (DBT) in full swing, comes social fragmentation and polarisation combined with economic inequality. In this hour, we are asked to commit to physical distancing – shredding society into even more pieces. 

People have become afraid of each other, not willing to make contact, not even to look each other in the eye; a handshake a sign of ill-intent. Afraid of what might prowl in the cough and sneeze or what might lurk in the hands of a once close friend. Afraid of the unseen, the unknown, the dragons in the air – and so we profusely wash our hands and hide our faces behind masks. 

South Africa has seen some of the harshest Covid-19 responses globally, but at what price? Amidst the government’s obsession with control and ongoing bickering about who may and may not extend a hand of kindness in the form of a food parcel to a person in need, while consuming it themselves, unemployment is skyrocketing. It is estimated that unemployment will reach 35% in the third quarter of 2020, the highest it has ever been. While hovering around 25% for many years, suggesting one in four people is unemployed, we’re about to breach the one in three threshold (see the figure below). This is truly uncharted territory – beware the dragons!

https://tradingeconomics.com/south-africa/unemployment-rate

Ask Africa, in its Week 17 Covid-19 report, states that 33% of respondents in the survey went to bed hungry or without food for a day, while 44% were suffering from some form of emotional distress and were either afraid or depressed. 

This is supported by NIDS-CRAM which found that 47% of respondents reported that their households ran out of money to buy food in April 2020. It thus comes as no surprise that the news is awash with headlines such as “South Africa faces mass hunger”, “Children eat wild plants to survive”, “Child hunger on the rise”, “The biggest lockdown threat is hunger hunger everywhere”, “The horror of child hunger stalks our land”, and “South Africans are literally starving”.

With the future of South Africa at stake, let us not be masked by a blatantly obvious, yet tragic irony – with irony defined as an absurdity between what is expected and what occurs in reality. Given the facts above, with suggestions of famine reminiscent of times of war or depression, one would expect equally depressing crop harvests – yet the opposite is true.

Surrounded by a sea of hunger and political ineptness, South Arica is enjoying the second-largest maize harvest of all time, second only to the bumper 2016/17 crop, as shown in the figure below. 

The 2016/17 maize production was 16.7 million tonnes, with the expected production in 2019/20 to be 15.2 million tonnes, or about 250% higher than the 1994/95 harvest of 4.4 million tonnes. 

From me, a non-producer, a word of sincere gratitude and appreciation to all producers. Thank you. You have done your part.

DBT: With both hunger and unemployment at unprecedented levels, while the granaries are filled and politicians are seeking innovative routes to self-enrichment, the people’s patience is running out.  

There is a realisation that the prevailing hunger is not production-related, but rather institutional – and institutional problems require institutional solutions. Institutional solutions include the strengthening of relationships among all growers (large and small), and the shortening of the value chain between producers and consumers. 

It also includes improving ways to transfer knowledge pertaining to regenerative production methods that heal the land, and the enhanced capability to reach those who are in need with the stores at our disposal. To this end, initiatives such as Project Heal wish to contribute.

It is time for the government to step aside and allow caring South Africans to do what South Africans are great at uniting in the face of adversity, facing the storm, and caring for one another. DM

Read More

Free range chicken is the best


Free range chicken is the best. You are what you need. Free range chickens are also a critical element in rolling out Regenerative Agriculture. The value is through soil restoration thus enhancing nutrient content in the soil to ensure cost effective, healthy (nutrient dense) food.

Free range chicken is the best. You are what you need. Free range chickens are also a critical element in rolling out Regenerative Agriculture. The value is through soil restoration thus enhancing nutrient content in the soil to ensure cost effective, healthy (nutrient dense) food. #gobacktobasics #letsproduceourownfood #FepasechabaAgriSolutions

Posted by Khumo Magano on Wednesday, 12 August 2020
Read More

Regenerative agriculture for food and climate

Can regenerative agriculture (RA) produce an adequate amount of nutritious food for the growing and increasingly affluent world population while also reducing and offsetting some anthropogenic emissions? The question may be reframed: how can RA be adapted to produce enough food, be a negative emission technology, and advance Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations (2015)? System-based RA reconciles the need of producing adequate and nutritious food with the necessity of restoring the environment, making farming a solution to environmental issues. It encompasses a wide range of farming and grazing practices aimed at restoration and sustainable management of soil health through sequestration of soil organic carbon (C). There is no one-size-fits-all practice for diverse soils and ecoregions. RA comprises system-based conservation agriculture (CA), which includes no-till farming in conjunction with residue mulching, cover cropping, integrated nutrient and pest management, complex rotations, and integration of crops with trees and livestock (figure 1) (Lal 2015). RA is all inclusive, and its site-specific package(s) must be fine-tuned in the context of biophysical factors and the human dimensions. RA is soil-centric rather than seed-centric and is based on the premise that “health of soil, plants, animals, and humans is one and indivisible” (Howard 1943; Howard and Howard 1945).

In the present context of climate change and environmental issues, it is appropriate to extend the concept by stating that the health
of soil, plants, animals, people, and environment is one and indivisible. The expanded concept, based on the realization of the living
soil (Balfour 1943), is specifically pertient in the era of COVID-19 (Lal 2020). The goal is to enhance soil organic matter (SOM) content and strengthen coupled biogeochemical cycling of C with water, nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), sulfur (S), and other elements (Lal 2010), along with strengthening disease resistance capacity of soil (Howard 1921). The soil-centric approach is focused on obtaining an optimum yield sustained on a long-term
basis and with minimal dependence on agrochemicals. It contrasts with the conventional approach of obtaining high yields on a shortterm basis with heavy and indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, tillage,
and other energy-based inputs. Therefore, an appropriate question is not whether RA works or not, but how to make it work under
site-specific conditions, including biophysical, social, economic, and the human dimensions. Recent advances in system-based approaches to adapting CA have improved application, enhanced global adoption, and increased the rate of adoption (Kassam et al. 2019).

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE

Whereas scientific debate is essential to ensuring quality and credibility, understanding the basic issues being deliberated is critical to maintaining objectivity. Global agriculture is already producing enough food to feed 10
billion people. However, about 30% of all food produced is wasted. It is thus important to break the vicious circle of produce, waste, degrade, pollute, and produce more. Therefore, the goal of RA is to apply the
concept of more from less (McAfee 2019) to agriculture and produce more from less (Lal 2013): less land area, less input of chemicals, less use of water, less emission of greenhouse gases, less risk of soil degradation, and less use of energy-based inputs (table 1). The strategy is to spare land and resources for nature. Wasting food and polluting the environment
are crimes against nature.

Therefore, RA is based on the premise of

  1. Managing soil fertility by enhancing SOM content, biological N fixation, and recycling of nutrients rather than by indiscriminate inputs of chemical fertilizers.
  2. Improving soil structure by increasing activity and species diversity of biota (e.g., earthworms and microorganisms) and prolific plant roots rather than by plowing.
    3.Increasing availability of green water by conserving precipitation, reducing losses by runoff and evaporation, moderating
    soil temperature, and encouraging deep root systems
  3. Controlling water and wind erosion through preventative measures of maintaining a continuous groundcover, cover cropping, and CA rather than by curative land forming and engineering structures
  4. Managing soil acidification and elemental imbalance by biofertilizers (e.g., compost, manure, mycorrhiza) rather than by indiscriminate dumping of chemicals.
  5. Enhancing water infiltration rate by reducing crusting, compaction,
    hard-setting, and desiccation through retention of residue mulch, cover cropping, and creation of bio-pores through bioturbation of the rhizosphere

GREEN REVOLUTION OF THE 21ST CENTURY

The Green Revolution of the 21st century based on the concepts of RA must be

  1. Soil-based, through enhancement and sustainable management of soil
    health by managing SOM content and strengthening mechanisms of elemental/nutrient recycling and increasing soil resilience to climate change.

2.Ecosystem-based, through enhancement of eco-efficiency that minimizes
losses, enhances use efficiency of inherent and applied resources and minimizes dependence on external inputs
3.Knowledge-based by using modern science and managerial skills, which
restore soil health and strengthen ecosystem services for humans and nature.
4.Based on the Law of Return (Howard 1943), which states, replace what is
removed, respond wisely to what is altered, predict what alterations may
occur through anthropogenic/natural perturbations, and adopt practices that restore and enhance soil health

  1. Focused on creating a positive soil and ecosystem C budget so that the
    terrestrial C pool is increasing over time until the sink capacity is filled, its permanence assured, risks of leakage minimized, and the terrestrial biosphere recarbonized.

TRANSLATING SCIENCE INTO ACTION

Identification and formulation of policy are critical to translating science into action. Implementation of a “Soil Quality Act” (Lal 2019) is essential to complementing the existing Air Quality Act and Water Quality Act,
and harnessing benefits of the soil-water-air nexus. The Soil Quality Act, aimed at making agriculture a solution to environmental issues, will also incentivize farmers through payments for ecosystem services such as
sequestering of C in soil and vegetation (terrestrial biosphere), improving quality and renewability of water resources, strengthening biodiversity, and making agriculture nutrition-sensitive. Payments for ecosystem
services must be transparent, just, fair, and based on the societal value of C, water, biodiversity, and other natural resources.

https://www.jswconline.org/content/early/2020/07/31/jswc.2020.0620A

  • © 2020 by the Soil and Water Conservation Society

Read More

Investing in unsustainable farming is reckless and endangers our future

Article By https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/

Extending credit to unsustainable agricultural enterprises affects the quality and quantity of aeons-old natural resources meant to support life for centuries to come. The irresponsibility of such lending is accentuated by the fact that profitable alternatives that heal the land are available.

The National Credit Act (34 of 2005) states, inter alia, that a credit agreement between a credit provider and a consumer (the recipient of the credit) can constitute reckless lending if any one of three conditions are met at the time of the agreement, or at the time the amount approved is increased. 

The conditions are:

  1. if the credit provider failed to conduct a detailed assessment before granting the credit or raising the amount, or, in the event that the credit provider did conduct an assessment, entered into the agreement despite the fact the information indicated that;
  2. the consumer did not generally understand or appreciate the consumer’s risks, costs or obligations under the agreement; or
  3. entering into the agreement would make the consumer over-indebted.

If reckless lending did occur, the court can prescribe certain remedies to the consumer who has fallen victim to such lending practices. When determining the remedy, there must be sufficient relationship between the purpose of the remedy (to discourage reckless lending and to rectify the damage caused) and the effects thereof on the credit provider. The remedy should neither go further than is necessary to rectify the prejudice suffered, nor unjustifiably enrich the consumer.

The reach of the Act, however, is limited. In most cases, credit extended to a juristic person – that is, an entity that is not a natural person but is regarded by law to have the status of a person, such as a company – is excluded. Note, there are some special exclusions for small companies where the Credit Act is still applicable. By the letter of the law, or in a de jure sense, no credit agreement to (most) companies can thus be considered as reckless lending.

But what about the spirit of the law? If there is sufficient evidence, whether explicit or implied, that the credit provider knows that the consumer will be exposed to an undue array of risks and/or costs, or is likely to be or become over-indebted due to the risks and/or costs, such lending could constitute reckless lending in a de facto sense.

Let us consider an example: within the context of global change – including climate change – change is a daily reality. All practices that either advance and/or fail to mitigate and adapt to such reality will invariably increase the risk to the consumer and add to the general cost burden. This is well illustrated within the agricultural sector. Credit extended to a farmer who applies conventional practices such as deep tillage, mono-cropping and practices that excludes cover crops, to name but a few, often advances the release of carbon in the atmosphere and destroys soil life and biodiversity. It does not enhance long term sustainability, on the contrary. 

These practices neither mitigate the effects of climate change nor do they adapt to changes therein, or enhance biodiversity and system-wide resilience. It could be argued that credit-lending practices that advance such production methods are irresponsible and reckless. Especially since such credit extension must consider the long term implications of the lending activity in its due diligence. 

What is more, the protection of natural resources, environmental security and food security are all matters within the ambit of the definition of national security. By supporting conventional agriculture thus directly and unequivocally endangers the country’s national security. 

It is the long term that matters since credit in agriculture, unlike seasonal commodity financing, affects the quality and quantity of natural resources that are aeons old, and that are supposed to support life for centuries to come. 

The irresponsibility of such lending practices is furthermore accentuated by the fact that profitable alternatives – that heal the land while reducing the carbon footprint of farming and build biodiversity, protect natural resources, and enhance resilience – are available. These practices can be lumped together under the broad umbrella of being aligned to climate-smart conservation and regenerative methods – to which a supporting policy environment is also required.

Given the change in external conditions, increases in the cost of external inputs such as chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides and the deterioration of the quality of the soil, the profit margins of conventional agricultural practices are, in most cases, declining while the risk burden is increasing. Lending institutions must be acutely aware of this cost spiral and risk burden, given the vast amount of literature on the topic. Lending agreements are thus potentially subject to reckless lending practices in a de facto sense. 

Although reckless lending cannot be argued by the letter of the law, and there is thus no legally imposed remedial action possible, clearly it is not in the spirit of the law. The inevitable outcome of such lending practices is a further deepening of the degree of farmer indebtedness leading to an escalation of the number of financially distressed farmers.  

With the debt burden increasing and the external conditions deteriorating, farmers are increasingly unable to honour their debt repayments. This puts financial pressures on lending institutions, such as the Land Bank is currently experiencing. The Land Bank is thus subsequently unable to honour its commitments to its creditors. 

Advancing credit to support and advance conventional practices can thus place pressure on the farmer and the financial system, and in the process advance the mismanagement of the country’s natural resources through soil erosion and biodiversity loss because of inadequate resources – and it jeopardises food security. 

What is more, the protection of natural resources, environmental security and food security are all matters within the ambit of the definition of national security. By supporting conventional agriculture thus directly and unequivocally endangers the country’s national security. 

There could have been mitigating circumstances for the persistence of such funding practices if alternatives were not available. However, more than sufficient proof, at all scales and in all contexts, exists in South Africa. Climate-smart conservation and regenerative agriculture are also strongly supported by the UN and FAO Decade of Family Farming, the UN’s Decade of Ecological Restoration, and the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) – agreements that are underwritten by the South African government. 

Lending institutions should reconsider funding conventional agriculture that constitutes reckless lending in a de facto sense, while escalating the risk of the country’s national security profile. Rather, lending institutions should actively support the nationally endorsed sustainable alternatives, and promote sustainable and regenerative practices using existing policies and frameworks. DM

Read More

Regenerative agriculture is getting more mainstream. But how scalable is it?

“Some terms defy definition. ‘Sustainable agriculture’ has become one of them,” writes the USDA National Agricultural Library. “In such a quickly changing world, can anything be sustainable? What do we want to sustain?”

Amid increasing consumer demand for transparency and a multitude of labels and initiatives, it can be hard to define what’s truly sustainable in the global agricultural system. By basic definition, sustainable food systems do not take away from the soil or environment. They seek to maintain Earth’s natural resources.

But about one-third of the world’s topsoil is already acutely degraded, and the United Nations estimates a complete degradation within 60 years if current practices continue. According to a 2019 UN report, nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history, with the pace of species extinctions accelerating. Given this current state, are sustainable agriculture activists limiting themselves by merely maintaining?

Enter regenerative agriculture. Dubbed “beyond sustainable,” regenerative agricultural methodologies seek to add to the soil through a self-nourishing ecological system that benefits the environment in the process. A closed-loop system that doesn’t halt humans’ impact on the environment, but reverses it. Is it too good to be true?

How regenerative agriculture works

The regenerative farming approach focuses on restoring soils that have been degraded by the industrial, agricultural system. Its methods promote healthier ecosystems by rebuilding soil organic matter through holistic farming and grazing techniques. In short, regenerative agriculture practitioners let nature do the work.

Soil organic matter is plant or animal tissue in the process of decay. While most soils are only 2% to 10% soil organic matter, this plays a vital role in soil health.

Each one-percent increase in soil organic matter helps soil hold 20,000 gallons more water per acre. And heightened water holding capacity means crops are more resilient through times of drought or heavy rain. By maintaining surface residues, roots, and soil structure with better aggregation and pores, soil organic matter reduces nutrient runoff and erosion, as well.

And the healthier the soil, the healthier the crop. When plants have the nutrients and roots systems they need to thrive, they build compounds to help protect against insects and disease. There is also growing evidence that a healthy soil microbiome full of necessary bacteria, fungi, and nematodes is more likely to produce nutrient-dense food, promoting better human health.

Regenerative farming practices boost soil health through a variety of techniques:

Integrating livestock

As animals move, their hooves break up the soil, compacting inedible plants and allowing nutrients and sunlight to new plants—essentially speeding up the building of soil organic matter, with crushed leaves and stalks creating a natural mulch. This better equips the soil for germinating seeds. And the livestock’s excrement adds nutrients to the ground, further improving water retention.

Cover crops

One of the key principles of regenerative agriculture techniques is to keep the soil covered at all times. This can be achieved through both plant residues and cover crops, which protect the soil from wind and water erosion, lower the temperature of the soil, and feed the microorganisms within it.

No-till

One teaspoon of healthy soil has more living organisms than there are people on Earth—vitally important building structure and overall soil health. Mechanical, physical, and chemical (synthetic fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide, and fungicide) disturbances all have a negative on the soil microbiome, putting soil nutrient cycling and environmental resilience at risk. Limiting the disturbance of the soil maintains the soil structure and prevents erosion.

Crop diversity

“Nature is more collaborative than competitive,” regenerative agriculture pioneer Gabe Brown writes in Dirt to Soil: One Family’s Journey into Regenerative Agriculture. Diverse ecosystems—whether it’s through plant or animal species—mean healthier and more resilient soil.

The importance of soil health is no news—many have argued this for years. But the Rodale Institute is often credited with popularizing the term regenerative organic. “Regenerative prioritizes soil health while simultaneously encompassing high standards for animal welfare and worker fairness. The idea is to create farm systems that work in harmony with nature to improve quality of life for every creature involved,” the Rodale Institute writes. The main difference is the systems-based approach.

“There is no silver bullet,” Brown notes. Every farmer practicing regenerative agriculture will adapt it to his or her individual crop type, soil type, and property needs. What’s important, proponents say, is that measures are being taken to build soil organic matter and add to the overall system’s biodiversity.

The results

“I could stop the flooding the Mississippi, I could cure the drought in the West, and I could cure human obesity. You only have to give me the three states of Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana. And a big herd of cattle,” says Ridge Shinn, grass-fed beef expert, and Founder of Big Picture Beef in Massachusetts. “It’s a big job. But I know for a fact that I could do that.” No one has taken him up on it yet, he jokes.

But there are ample stories to suggest the relatively fast, transformative impact of regenerative agricultural techniques—so far, on a much smaller scale.

After Gabe Brown introduced regenerative practices on his ranch in Bismark, North Dakota, organic matter and rainwater uptake tripled while he was able to handle five-times the number of cattle he used to. The ranch is also home to sheep, chickens, and dozens of crops. While he noticed a dramatic change in the landscape of the ranch itself, his previously indebted operation began turning a profit.

A 2013 study published in Agricultural Systems showed that, compared to conventionally managed farms, regenerative farms could accommodate more cattle per acre, had lower cow and calf mortality, purchased less feed, and used fewer herbicides. Researchers also found that topsoil was deeper, more aerated, and densely covered with plants.

The Biggest Little Farm, a film releasing in Spring 2019, follows first-time farmers John and Molly Chester as they regenerate depleted, seemingly hopeless land outside Los Angeles to a thriving regenerative operation. And there’s an ongoing map of documentaries on regenerative projects throughout the globe, currently listing more than 250.

Scientific studies focusing solely on regenerative agriculture as its own methodology are harder to come by. Often, studies overlap heavily with organic farming, as is the case with the Rodale Institute’s work (since regenerative practices are inherently organic), or focus on just one aspect of regenerative techniques. The most significant debates on regenerative agriculture, for example, surround the potential to sequester carbon from the atmosphere—and this debate focuses almost entirely on livestock management.

The great carbon debate

“A rule of thumb: for every percent of organic matter, you put down about five tons of carbon per acre. Not using technology, using photosynthesis,” Shinn says.

Among the most prominent players in this field, Allan Savory is dubbed the “pioneer of regenerative agriculture” by many. According to Savory—whose 2013 TED Talk on the subject, “How to fight desertification and reverse climate change,” has more than 5.5 million views—the only way to combat climate change is through raising livestock. And his proponents are passionate believers.

Nonprofit Regeneration International claims that transitioning 10% to 20% of agricultural production to best practice regenerative systems will sequester enough carbon dioxide to reverse climate change. And studies have found that applying this intensive grazing management increased soil carbon sequestration and reduced the lifetime GHG impact of grassfed beef by 24%.

A 2016 study led by Dr. Richard Teague, range ecologist and professor at Texas A&M University, supports the claim that appropriate grazing management can sequester enough carbon to offset GHG emissions. “Incorporating forages and ruminants into regeneratively managed agroecosystems can elevate soil organic C, improve soil ecological function by minimizing the damage of tillage and inorganic fertilizers and biocides, and enhance biodiversity and wildlife habitat,” the authors write.

According to the study, moderately stocked cattle on continuously grazed native rangeland in the Northern Great Plains had a net margin of carbon sequestered over emissions of 0.607 metric ton per hectare, per year. And when grazing management practices have improved ecosystem function and productivity (as in a regeneratively managed system), a net sink of up to 2.0 metric tons of carbon have been found in using high livestock densities for short durations (Savory’s grazing methodology).

The net carbon sink potential

It’s been estimated that meat production is responsible for 14.5% of total global GHG emissions, so achieving a net carbon sink in the global meat industry would make a significant impact. But no studies have investigated the claim that regeneratively-managed systems can produce a net carbon sink worldwide—and given the complexity of the overall food system, nevermind other industries, this would be incredibly difficult to determine with accuracy.

“Even if exaggerated claims about carbon sequestration were true, it is simply not possible to carry on eating as much meat, and dairy as trends indicate and obtain it through grass-fed systems alone,” according to authors of a 2017 report out of the University of Oxford, citing devastating land use change. Because of its highly efficient production, some even argue that intensively reared livestock is actually the most eco-friendly of all methods of raising the world’s meat, given the global appetite. Many of these claims, however, neglect to analyze the entire systems, disregarding important variables such as quality of meat and types of animal feed. Authors of recent research at the World Resources Institute said they did not include any sequestration from grazing practices in their estimates because the data were still piecemeal and vague.

“I have studiously stayed away from trying to make global predictions from these figures because it’s such a variable place,” Dr. Teague says about the claim that regenerative agriculture practices could reverse climate change. “But all the data we’ve collected suggest that the more people that manage their soil better, either in grazing or cropping systems, the more carbon will be in the ground. And that is a really significant factor.”

As Brown notes, there’s no silver bullet—for both climate change solutions and food system fixes. Regenerative principles have proven to sequester significant amounts of carbon into the ground. But achieving enough to reverse the course of climate change would require cooperation across the entire system.

“Since Galileo, it has been the fate of every scientist who discovered something that involved a major shift in scientific belief to be shunned or considered insane,” Savory tells Successful Farming in 2018. “Thankfully, I was already insane and had survived years of official, expert opposition.”

Going mainstream

Today, more and more institutions, corporations, and growers are becoming interested in regenerative agriculture—particularly in the past year alone.

With partners like Patagonia and Dr. Bronner’s, The Rodale Institute launched a Regenerative Organic Certification structure in 2018, aiming to build the movement off of existing organic standards. And nonprofit coalition Regeneration International has 250 global partners, consisting mostly of sustainably driven organizations and companies. Meanwhile, a regenerative agriculture Facebook discussion group has more than 21,500 members who actively discuss on the platform.

Brown recently joined with fellow pioneers Ray Archuleta and Dr. Allen Williams to form Understanding Ag, LLC, a regenerative agriculture consultation service. The group partnered with General Mills to help oat producers implement regenerative practices like no-till, crop rotation, and diversification, integrating cover crops, and integrating livestock when possible. Creating much buzz, General Mills announced a commitment to bring regenerative agriculture practices to 1 million acres of farmland by 2030.

And in 2018, the government of Andhra Pradesh, India, launched a plan to transition 8 million hectares of land from conventional agriculture methodology to Zero-Budget Natural Farming by 2024—India’s first 100% natural farming state, meaning they will eliminate the use of synthetic chemical agriculture. Organizers highlight the positive externalities of regenerative agriculture methodologies: climate-resilient systems which will help transform and protect local food systems and long-term well-being of farmers.

Regenerative agriculture has even broken into the online grocery business. Blue Apron’s Founder and Former COO Matthew Wadiak recently launched Cooks Venture, an online grocer to offer poultry the company says is raised using regenerative practices.

Investors are getting in on the action too: more and more investment opportunities are becoming available for regenerative agriculture operations, specifically. Farmland LP invests primarily in converting conventional farmland to regenerative and organic. Delta Institute, a nonprofit focusing on market-based solutions to environmental problems, is working to develop “a disruptive infrastructure that positions us to unlock substantial capital flows into the regenerative agriculture sector.” And Belgium-based Soil Capital offers advisory, management, and investment for farmers and organizations looking to develop regenerative agriculture.

Bridging with agtech

Regenerative agriculture, with its ideology based on returning to natural processes, is inherently low-tech. But many say that agtech innovations will play a vital role in both increasing the efficiency of the operation and facilitating communication. “But you’re going to need smart people operating the system,” Shinn says, “because it is an art, not a science.”

Shinn uses United Kingdom-based FarmWizard livestock management software on his farms. Others use technology to put gates on a timer—reducing the additional labor necessary to increase livestock rotation. And digital livestock tech startup Antelliq was recently acquired by Merck for $2.4 billion, the biggest agtech acquisition on record.

Technology can also bolster supply chain traceability. With a cloud-based tracking system for their livestock, Shinn’s farmers hope to communicate to the customer where the animal was born, how it grew up, and how it got to their plates.

“We need to develop technology that is derived from the underlying principles of regenerative agriculture that address the root cause of problems, such as weeds or pests, for instance. Stuff we can’t see sensors will notice, making regenerative processes even more regenerative or making the processes work for each farmer,” says Benedikt Bösel, Chair of Soil Alliance and Managing Director of Schlossgut Alt Madlitz, an ecological farm and forestry in East Germany where different forms of regenerative agriculture are implemented and made comparable.

Soil sensors from Teralytic, for example, can measure aeration and respiration—key soil health indicators—as well as nutrient levels throughout the season, so a farmer newly taking up regenerative practices can quantify the results with data. Satellite crop health imagery software from Trimble can allow growers to compare crop health at each growing stage as well as from season to season—a visual representation of the impact of regenerative techniques.

And sharing this insight will be key to spreading the practice. “You have the opportunity to connect with people all over the world, see how they’re doing it, how they solve problems, and so forth,” Bösel adds.

Can it scale?

Large companies have the funding for sustainability initiatives to back these efforts—and the tech to support it even further. But for smaller-scale, family farmers looking to transition, it does come with a cost. “It takes a little while. It’s a biological system; it’s not like a spray with immediate results,” Shinn says. “The transition is a challenge—but we do have techniques.”

Many agree that connecting soil health to consumer health will be one of the biggest drivers of consumer demand. “We have to change our approach to raising our food,” and that will take having consumers think, “this directly affects me, not just the long horizon of balance and stability of the planet, but it’s affecting my kids,” says Aaron Niederhelman, CEO & co-founder of OneHealthAg and host of regenerative agriculture podcast Sourcing Matters.

And increased consumer demand will make it easier for more farmers to justify and invest in the transition. “It’s gotta be market-driven,” Shinn says. “So we’re working as fast as we can on that.”

Right now, regenerative agriculture is primarily a grassroots movement happening across the globe. Whether they’re labeling it as regenerative, sustainable, or organic, many first-time farmers are embracing the regenerative promise of restoring a broken agricultural system. With more young people entering the field and more farmland rental options for those unable to buy, the opportunity to collaborate for collective change stronger than ever. Meanwhile, more politicians (like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) are bringing regenerative solutions into the conversation, and more mainstream news outlets are defining the practices for wider audiences.

“The only way we’re going to change our food system is getting the big players to have a seat at the table with us,” Niederhelman continues. This means working together with the nonprofit coalitions, large corporations, small-scale farmers, investors, and activists. It also means helping consumers understand the meaning and implications of these practices.

“We have to stop saying conventional is bad, ecological is good. That makes it so hard to find solutions and common ground between different ways of doing things,” says Bösel. “There’s only one agriculture.”

Read More

Gesonde grond, gesonde kos, gesonde mense

Ons is wat ons eet. En ja, dis meer as net ’n lekker sêding, skryf JAMES BLIGNAUT, wat betrokke is by die
“Heal the Land. Heal the People”-inisiatief.
https://www.vryeweekblad.com/menings-en-debat/2020-07-22-gesonde-grond-gesonde-kos-gesonde-mense/

EK asem diep in en my neusgate vul met herinneringe. Die rook van jou braaivleisvuur trek diep in, tot by die wortels van my menswees, en bevestig die sterk band tussen jou, my, ons, wie ons as mense is en wat ons eet. Die geur word aangevul deur druppende vet, sissende vleis en brandende hout. Nou gaan ons BRAAI!
Die braai is nie net idiomaties van vriendskap nie, maar verbind ons ook met waar ons vandaan kom, wat ons reeds gedoen het en waarheen ons op pad is. Die braai gaan oor soveel meer as net die vleis; dit is oor die samekoms, die vriende, die musiek, die mosaïek van die lewe self. Die braai is ryk in kos, ryk in tradisie, geborge in tydloosheid.
Dit is hierdie verband tussen kultuur en kos wat ek elke jaar op 18 Junie onthou met die viering van die Dag vir Volhoubare Gastronomie. Op dié dag word die kuns en wetenskap onthou en gevier van gesonde eetgewoontes wat die sjef, die boer, die professionele persoon, die armlastige, ons tradisies en ons gesondheid saamsnoer.

Dit herinner ons aan die feit dat kos ons met ons verlede verbind, en dit verbind ons met ons kinders en ons toekoms. Die braai herinner ons dat kos alle geestelike, emosionele en biofisieke grense oorsteek. Almal van ons moet eet, en eet gaan oor samekoms en samesyn. Dit is hierdie verband tussen kultuur en kos wat ek elke jaar op 18 Junie onthou met die viering van die Dag vir Volhoubare Gastronomie.
Kos verbind ons nie net op emosionele en geestelike vlak met onsself en mekaar nie, maar raak ook ons gesondheid. Ons kan nie gesonder wees as die kos wat ons eet nie. Die gehalte van die kos wat ons eet, is die grens of beperkende faktor van ons gesondheid. As ons byvoorbeeld kos met ’n lae pH (3-5) eet, soos die meeste koeldranke, kitskos en voorafbereide maaltye, sal ons ’n toestand genaamd asidose – suurvergiftiging – kry.
Asidose word verbind met sowel asemhalings- en metaboliese probleme soos kortasemheid, ’n verhoogde hartklop, naarheid, spiertrekking en/of -swakheid, hoofpyne, lomerigheid,verwarring en verlies aan bewussyn.

Kos is letterlik in ons bloed


Aan die ander kant, as ons vars kos vol voedingstowwe eet, sal ons liggaam reageer deur die suurstofryke rooibloedselle te genees. Hoe meer suurstof, hoe gesonder is die spiere en die liggaam en hoe beter voel en funksioneer ons. Die feit is dat kos letterlik in ons bloed is.
Die reistog van gesonde kos, eet en gesonde mense begin lank voor die maaltyd. Die reistog van kos begin in die grond.
Daar is grond en dan is daar grónd. Vrugbare grond is verryk met biljoene bakterieë, fungusse en mikro-organismes wat stilweg en onsigbaar, maar kliphard en suksesvol werkskaf. Hoe gesonder die grond, hoe groter is die getal lewende gemeenskappe organismes daarin en hoe gesonder is húlle.

Dit lei daartoe dat die grond se vermoë om water te hou, verbeter en dit meer vrugbaar is. Die menigte organismes in hierdie wonderwêreld onder die oppervlak dra die voedingstowwe in die grond aan die plant oor.

Hoe meer organismes daar is, hoe meer voedingstowwe word na die plant oorgedra. Hoe hoër die voedingstofopname van die plant, hoe gesonder is die plant en hoe meer voedingstowwe is daar in die oes, die vrug, die gras of wat ook al geproduseer word vir die verbruik van mense of diere.

Maar dan is die reistog nog nie oor nie; dit word net meer opwindend. Dit beweeg aan van die bakterieë en organismes in die grond wat die plant voed na die bakterieë en organismes in die mens se ingewande wat as die eerste verdedigingslinie in ons immuunstelsels ons gesondheid in stand hou.

Gesondheidsreis begin in die grond

Nie net lei gesonde kos tot ’n gesonde spysverteringstelsel nie, maar ’n gesonde spysverteringstelsel help die liggaam op sy beurt om die voedingstowwe in die kos te absorbeer. En só begin ons gesondheidsreis ook in die grond.

Van gesondheid van die grond tot gesondheid van die kos tot gesondheid van die mens: Hoe moet die proses begin word? Dit begin met mense wat omgee vir mekaar, vir die natuur, vir die grond en wat bestuursgewoontes het wat lewe regenereer.

Nie net lei gesonde kos tot ’n gesonde spysverteringstelsel nie, maar ’n gesonde spysverteringstelsel help die liggaam om die voedingstowwe in kos te absorbeer.

Dit is werklik heel eenvoudig: Wanneer die plaas bestuur word op ’n manier wat nuwe lewe in die grond blaas, sal daardie lewe aan die plant en aan die kos en aan ons oorgedra word. Sulke bestuursgewoontes sluit permakultuur, bosweiding en bewaringslandbou in. Boerderypraktyke soos geen bewerking, dekgewasse, wisselbou, tussengewasse, komposvorming, die integrasie van lewende hawe, mobiele dierskuilings en weidingsbestuur.

Dit is ’n sistemiese benadering waar al die eksterne insette soos plaagdoders, kunsmis en fossielbrandstof tot ’n minimum beperk word tewyl afval verminder en herwin word en biodiversiteit in die plaas se produksiestelsel ingebring word.

Lewegewende eienskappe en prosesse

Boerderypraktyke wat só lewe regenereer in so ’n benadering spaar geld en moeite. Nodeloos om te sê dat hoe meer kos verwerk word, hoe verder beweeg ons weg van die grond, ongeag hoe gesond die grond is. Hoe minder kos verwerk word, hoe nader is ons aan die grond en sy lewegewende eienskappe en prosesse.

Gesonde grond, gesonde mense, oftewel “Heal the land, heal the people”. Dis meer as net ’n lekker sêding. Dit is ons lewe. Dit is ons toekoms. Daar is heelwat om oor te dink oor hoe ons ons kos verbou, versprei, verwerk, voorberei en geniet. Hoe nader ons aan die bron van ons kos is, hoe nader ons aan die plaas en die regenererende boerederypraktyk is, hoe gesonder is ons.

Namate regenererende prosesse die grond en sy mense gesond maak, word die herstelvermoë van die sosio-ekologiese ekosisteem versterk. Die sosio-ekologiese ekosisteem is hierdie wisselwerking tussen mense en die natuur en tussen mense en natuurlike organismes wat lewe moontlik maak.

Eenvoudig gestel: Hoe meer diversiteit daar in die grond is, hoe meer diversiteit is daar in die mens se spysverteringstelsel en hoe beter is die kollektiewe vermoë om siektes en omgewingsrampe te weerstaan. Ekologiese, sosiale en finansiële gevare, hetsy dit enige virus, wanvoeding of klimaatsverandering is, word dus getemper.

Helaas begin ook ’n groot aantal van ons ekonomiese en finansiële reistogte in die grond. Dit is dus nodig om ook daad by die woord te voeg en in die herstel van ons pragtige land se grond te belê.

Die rook van die braaivleisvuur herinner my dat die reis van die vleis, die pap, die drinkgoed en die bykosse verbind is aan my gesondheid en wie ek is en ons gemeenskaplike blootstelling aan gevare. Om na die grond om te sien, is om na onsself om te sien.

*  Prof. James Blignaut is buitengewone professor aan die Skool vir Openbare Leierskap aan die Universiteit Stellenbosch en ere-navorsingsgenoot van die Suid-Afrikaanse aardwaarnemingsnetwerk (SAEON).


NEEM DEEL AAN DIE GESPREK: Gaan na heel onder op hierdie bladsy om op hierdie artikel kommentaar te lewer, of klik regs bo as jy op die app is. Ons hoor graag van jou!

Read More

Learning about regenerative agriculture

The implementation of regenerative agriculture principles is allowing a growing number of farmers to reduce their inputs while producing similar or even better yields than they would have produced if they used conventional farming practices.

Regenerative agriculture is the latest buzz in responsible agricultural management. It is similar to conservation farming in that it combines the use of stubble retention, crop rotation and the minimum disturbance of the soil to promote soil health, but is on a higher level as it also incorporates the use of cover crops, compost teas, compost and manure (to avoid using synthetic fertilisers), pesticides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

While having the same aims, it moves beyond the simple definition of ‘organic’ and ‘biological’ production, aiming not only to replace chemical inputs with so-called natural inputs, or to improve microbiological diversity, but to adapt farming practices to what is happening in and around the plant, and to essentially mimic rather than work against nature.

The first thing to change when switching to regenerative farming is your mindset, says Prof Buz Kloot from the University of South Carolina in the US. Kloot, a proponent of regenerative farming, has been documenting regenerative farming practices in the US since 2011.

During a recent regenerative farming conference in Cape Town, he explained that farmers are often led to look for quick fixes to improve production outcomes.

Regenerative agriculture, in contrast, is built on a “soil health mindset”, which is “more about thinking through what you are doing and where you are going with your production practices”.

It is based on the understanding that soil is a living, dynamic ecosystem and not just a growth medium. “Soil health, in effect, should be seen as a journey and not a destination, with production strategies continuously being adapted to accommodate changes in the system.”

It is also not about equipment, but about understanding how systems work.

Agriculturefixes to improve production outcomes. Regenerative agriculture, in contrast, is built on a “soil health mindset”, which is “more about thinking through what you are doing and where you are going with your production practices”.

It is based on the understanding that soil is a living, dynamic ecosystem and not just a growth medium.

“Soil health, in effect, should be seen as a journey and not a destination, with production strategies continuously being adapted to accommodate changes in the system.”

It is also not about equipment, but about understanding how systems work.

Kloot says regenerative farming proponent Ray Archuleta taught him that equipment, such as no-till planters, was important, but just “one of the types of tools available in the quest for better soil health”.

The practice
Jason Carter, a farmer from the US who seven years ago started using multispecies cover crops with chicken manure as his primary source of fertiliser, says increased awareness of the importance of soil health has led to “farmers no longer boasting about the size of their tractors, but the size of the radishes in their crop mixes and the carbon content of their soils”.

Carter farms in Eastover, South Carolina, in a region that receives more than 1 000mm of rain a year. With its very sandy soils, the region, in spite of high rainfall levels, is always “two weeks away from a drought”.

The cover crops he uses to ensure there is always a crop in the land consist of a mixture of rye, radishes, clover and vetch before he plants maize. Rye, radish and lupin are planted before cotton or soya bean.

Carter, nevertheless, wants to expand his cover crop mixtures to at least eight different species, since the general consensus is that the bigger the diversity, the better aboveground biomass, soil health, and consequently, soil fertility.

It cost him about R850/ha to establish the cover crops. “You can let the weeds grow if you do not plant cover crops. While this is not ideal, it is better than having nothing.”

During the first year of using regenerative agricultural practices, he chemically terminated the cover crops almost two months before planting his cash crop.

He realised, however, that this resulted in him not leveraging the full benefit of these crops, so he now only sprays cover crops before planting soya bean, and plants his maize into green covers.

“The cover crops planted before soya bean, usually 30 to 40 days after maize, are sprayed 30 days before planting to ensure there is enough moisture in the soil for soya bean production and because soya bean needs good seed-to-soil contact,” he says.

Fertiliser savings
As is the case with many other farmers using regenerative agriculture, Carter’s achievements are exposing a few anomalies in traditional farming practices.

For example, he has eliminated the use of granular phosphorous and potassium, without any impact on production, crop quality or his soil test results. Instead, he applies 1t to 2t of chicken manure when planting cotton and maize, and no manure when planting soya bean.

While general consensus in the US is that at least 1kg of nitrogen is needed to produce 55kg of maize, Carter produces 11,5t of maize for 50kg nitrogen applied to his dryland maize, which is 230kg maize per kilogram of nitrogen.

He applies half of the 50kg/ ha as slow-release nitrogen to his dryland maize, and adds another 50kg of liquid nitrogen to his irrigated maize through the pivot.

He achieves about 15t/ ha of maize under his irrigation system for 100kg/ha nitrogen.

Many cover-cropping farmers in the southeastern US, including Carter, have also seen that they can get away with less or no lime despite the traditional conviction that lime should always be applied to counter the acidification of soil.

Kloot says that in some parts of the US, farmers apply up to 2 100kg/ha of lime every second year, at a cost of about R1 850/ ha. “We, however, have seen that despite the use of no lime, we are actually seeing an increase in pH levels where we are cover cropping.”

One of the reasons for the positive results with cover crops is that crops with deep root systems help to bring soil nutrients to the top layer of the soil.

“Farmers usually take soil samples at a depth of 15cm, yet soil nutrients such as phosphorous and potassium generally reside much deeper. By reducing the volumes of fertiliser needed to correct deficiencies, cover crops with deep root systems can generate savings equal to a pension plan,” he says.

Better soil structure
As has been found with conservation farming in South Africa, regenerative agriculture is buffering production against droughts and floods and protecting the soil against water and wind erosion by improving the soil structure and resilience.

To illustrate, Carter managed to produce 5,3t/ha of maize in spite of an extreme drought at the start of 2015, while neighbouring farms using conventional methods abandoned their fields and collected the insurance.

Later that same year, his farm was flooded, with 508mm of rain falling in less than 24 hours.

In spite of most of his neighbours suffering severe crop losses, he was still able to harvest a soya bean crop three weeks later.

“The harvest was only a third of our normal production, but still better than nothing. We also did not suffer severe soil loss, whereas most of the topsoil of one of my neighbours ended up in one of my fields.”

Although Carter primarily makes use of minimum and no tillage, he was forced to strip-till the lands that were flooded as there was a great deal of compaction. “Regenerative farming is not set in stone. You need to use common sense and adapt your strategies to what is happening in the land and with the plant.”

Pest management
While conventional farming teaches that ‘the only good bug is a dead bug’, regenerative farmers recognise the benefit of having a huge diversity of soil microorganisms – ‘good guys’ or ‘bad guys’ – to create a healthy, balanced ecosystem, and the positive spin-offs this has for pest management, pollination and the breakdown and binding of minerals.

Pesticides are used as a last resort; Carter has over time been able to reduce his pesticide usage by 70% and fungicide usage by 95%. He plans to completely phase out the use of pesticides, seed treatments and GMOs.

Cover crops ensure a beneficial habitat for the soil organisms through the creation of above- and below-ground habitats for beneficial microbes and invertebrates.

A good foundation
Kloot says one of the reasons producers’ experiences are not in line with the conventional agricultural production model is because most conventional agricultural science is done on degraded lands.

Research conditions, in effect, are not representative of what is happening in healthy soils, where farmers use minimum tillage, cover crops, stubble retention, organic sources and reintegration of animals to build soil biology.

Kloot advises farmers to convert slowly, and grow with the system: “The switch should be well planned and founded on good production principles, otherwise you will run into problems.”

Read More
  • 1
  • 2