Farm Diary - Gwyn Jones
Given the time to think and ponder whilst on holiday, my curiosity has again been drawn to re-generative agriculture. What is it, what does it mean, and who is it that has drawn up the rules? I looked up a definition and it says, ‘as the name suggests, it is an approach to farming that, in theory, allows the land, the soil, water and nutrients, and the natural assets to regenerate themselves’.
Nothing new there, that is a pretty accurate description of good practice conventional farming but adds, ‘as opposed to conventional approaches to farming that can deplete these natural resources’. That makes me suspicious, why the need to denigrate conventional farming?
I then look further in my research for answers and minimum cultivation comes up as very important. I totally agree with this, but min-till has been around for decades with farmers benefiting from covering their ground far quicker than a plough, and these days it can often be done with one-pass. That means a cultivator, a subsoiler (if needed) a seed-drill and fertilizer all at the same time. It often requires much bigger tractors and machinery (less labour) and the size of these cultivators have grown considerably. So yes, I agree, but this has been around much longer than re-gen and it does of course (usually) depend on Glyphosate to kill the weeds.
I then read that farmers can disturb and destroy topsoil through soil erosion, chemical pollution, and intensive agricultural practices. Well, that is quite a statement, and I struggle with it a bit. However, soil erosion is of course to be avoided at all times, and we do occasionally see it in West Sussex, when heavy rain washes soil into ditches and onto the roads. All conventional farmers would agree with that and always have done. Chemical pollution? I fear that this is about fungicides and insecticides, used to protect crops and probably artificial or chemical fertilizer? I would strongly dispute that any of this is true if applied responsibly and correctly in line with good agricultural practice.
Then I read that regenerative agriculture is not a specific practice, it combines a variety of sustainable agricultural techniques. Highlighting min-till, it goes on to say that as soil health improves, input requirements may decrease, and crop yields may increase as soils are more resilient to extreme weather and harbour fewer pests and pathogens. Again true, but nothing to do with re-gen, any farmer can improve his or her soil through conventional farming practices, it’s what farmers have always tried to do over the decades.
It then goes on to say that regenerative agriculture mitigates climate change through carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere and sequestration. Of course, conventional agriculture does that too, although I might agree that it is possible to emit less by using fewer inputs, but of course one will grow less, and many scientists dispute the sequestration proposition.
I have listened to several podcasts and read a great deal from different people in agriculture, from vets to farmers to the usual enthusiasts about re-gen. Most of what they say is wishy washy to my mind, talking around the subject and talking about soil health without being specific, with some claiming greater animal health, but with no evidence, many talk about the need for consumers to pay more for re-gen produced food.
We need some science and evidence here and given that I am in France with my good friend Frank Tyndall, who is in fact a soil scientist, it is only natural that we discussed this all at great length. Frank explains that the science of the soil is well understood and has been for a very long time, and without some new evidence, we should stick to that science and not deviate.
The basics are vitally important, a healthy soil needs adequate moisture, not under drought conditions and not waterlogged due to excess rain. Temperature must also be within a reasonable range; you cannot have a healthy soil in very high temperature of freezing conditions. We can then move on to the important issues, such as texture, structure, and organic matter. Texture is the type of soil on the farm, clay soils, sandy soils, silt and a mixture of any of these which we call a loam. These vary of course and it’s the texture of the soil which determines the capacity to hold water and drainage.
There is nothing a farmer can do about the texture of soil on the farm. At Tillington we have a very sandy soil on a south facing slope, therefore it is excellent in winter and drains freely, but dries up rapidly in the summer and often burns off. At Plaistow we have the exact opposite, very heavy weald clay with particles not visible to the human eye (smaller than 0.002mm) and will absorb moisture and hold onto it very tightly. It does not drain at all!
Soil structure describes how these particles are arranged, or aggregated, particularly how small clay particles can be held together. Bigger particles have bigger pore spaces around them, allowing easier entry, movement, and exit, of air and water. Plant roots need a balance of air and water, so structure is critical, and farmers can improve structure.
A good structure is highly desirable and growing crops which adds to the organic matter is a good way of achieving this and chemical fertilizer has a part to play as the readily available nutrients will grow the crop which in turn, with more bulk and a better root structure, can increase soil organic matter. Farmyard manure is also a good way to add organic matter to the soil, a practice which goes back centuries. An example of conventional best practice and soil heath is soil acidity. Science tells us optimum soil pH and the amount of lime to apply to improve pH if needed, farmers have been applying lime for years
A nice medium to slightly heavy loam is a very good soil indeed and will grow very good crops as a rule. All soils will grow crops of course, especially grassland for the poorer soils, such as weald clay. There will not be a huge amount of organic matter in heavy clay, but as Frank says the best way to increase organic matter is to grow a good crop and develop a healthy root structure, and the usual way of doing this is to apply chemical fertilizer and feed the plant.
It makes no different to the plant where these nutrients come from, but their availability will grow a good crop. Of course, we know that Nitrogen needs to be used in a responsible way, as it does break down and produces Nitrous Oxide, which is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases, but being anti chemical fertilizer makes no sense in most cases.
These are the reasons why I might be excused for not being quite so sold on regenerative farming. I am yet to be convinced of its merits when compared to conventional best practice in agriculture. I might be missing something here and if someone can point that out to me, I will happily take it all back. We must stick to science, and I am alarmed at how often science is ignored or mis-represented when it comes to environmental matters and climate change. It is so important to not gamble with food production, especially in the world we live in now.