Key words but what do they mean, how do you do it?

[wbvs58]

The methane thread has got me on my high horse a bit. Have you noticed all these words being thrown around these days like "sustainable farming", "regenerative agriculture", "natural sequence farming", "carbon sequesting", not to mention "organic farming". I see articles about these things in the agricultural newspapers I read but when I read them I am none the wiser for how to do it. They just seem to go round in circles throwing out more of those feel good words describing things. These people are spoken about as if they have discovered some new way of doing things that is so superior to the rest of us but there are no directions on how to do it so that we can all sell our sequested carbon for big bucks.
I bought this land 16 years ago, it is light sandy soil and was set grazed and the grass was all close to the ground and never got any length to it even with good rain in summer. I split my paddocks up into 8 paddocks and started rotational grazing, I leased and now bought another 600 acres of scrub land next door where if things go bad I can put the cows in there with a bit of supplement until we get rain and because I don't have to graze my paddocks right down I get good response with rain. My place is a lot more productive now than when I bought it. By just doing what I think is just common sense in managing my land am I practicing "regenerative agriculture"? I think most of you would be in a similar situation, we don't need these trendy names to do what we do but then if we are doing a bit of self promotion telling our story and justifying our existence to the hoards in the cities that seem to be pointing the finger at us as the cause of all their environmental problems then maybe we do need to use these new "key words" to describe what we do.

Ken

 

[Stocker Steve]

Grazing gurus have to come up with a new term every couple years to maintain an audience and thus their cash flow. Adaptive grazing is one of the newer terms. I would summarize a three days seminar with you need a goal for each piece of ground and need to vary the grazing density accordingly. Please send me $1,000 US.

The semi interesting part is that increased grazing density jacks up the biological soil activity - - which will increase the carbon content and the fertility of the soil. So cows can save the plant while directly and indirectly increasing the amount of plant available nutrients. Magic... The issue with regeneration and adaptive and such is that biology is not linear and you need "ultra high" grazing densities at times. Having a couple paddocks beats continuous grazing, but it does not cut it anymore. One word - - polywire.

I think a future issue for the beef industry is that a lot of people have latched onto planting trees to sequester more carbon. This is a much easier sell than more cow pies. Sleepy Joe is on this bandwagon and FSA will be passing out free trees in a couple years.

Meanwhile - - are you making adjustments to your grazing plan due to skyrocketing chemical fertilizer costs and the latest leanings?

 

[Rydero]

I'm like you Ken and I suspect a lot are. I practice some of what could be called regenerative agriculture but I don't label what I do. Seems to me that's mostly marketing and what Steve alludes to - there's more money in being a grazing guru and making YouTube videos than cattle farming.

I don't get fully on board with any of these systems/labels because often when you really dig into it they don't really work or can't be proven. An example - I attended an event a while ago with a pretty prominent Canadian guru and at one point he showed pictures of him seeding cover crops into a former Canola field with a broadcaster on the back of a truck, talking about how he doesn't need a tractor. Very impressive results he was getting too, no spray, no fertilizer. Except for the part where the field was black when he started because it was Canola last year. People tend to keep fertility up on crops that net over $20/bushel too. So I asked - that's great but what if you're starting with old sod in a pasture? He didn't answer the question. Why? Because he'd need spray or tillage to do that and that's not regenerative.

All that said a lot of modern Ag is basically mining in my opinion. There's a lot that we can do better and we don't have to buy everything we're being sold on either side. If I find a practice I think will work I adopt it and don't worry about what it's called. Maybe when I develop an entire system I'll write a book, give it a name and make some videos though, lol.

 

[Son of Butch]

Grazing gurus have to come up with a new term every couple years to maintain an audience and thus their cash flow.
Sleepy Joe is on this bandwagon and FSA will be passing out free trees in a couple years.

With his leadership you can bet they will be palm trees for use as shade.
(Palm tree throws no useable shade)

 

[Stocker Steve]

With his leadership you can bet they will be palm trees for use as shade.
(Palm tree throws no useable shade)

We have a pine cone shortage this fall. The tree nurseries are trying to ramp up.

 

[ClinchValley86]

To me, it is all about reducing inputs to make more money. And if practiced correctly, it does result in improved forage production. Plus, it's pretty to look at.

The current agriculture world is stuck on expensive inputs. All of which began within the last century. Took us away from that symbiotic relationship with the soil.

There is glyphosate in a box of cheerios for goodness sake. Just terrible if you ask me.

I know in my heart that all of these chemicals used in farming are the cause to so much of the illness experienced throughout the world. No way it couldn't be.

I do think there is much merit to trying to do things in a sustainable way.

Look at the projected fertilize prices for next year. No one can afford that. What did they do 100 years ago before chemical fertilizers? They used logic and observation.

My 2 cents.

 

[ClinchValley86]

And Stocker Steve...yes...POLYWIRE.

 

[greybeard]

We have a pine cone shortage this fall. The tree nurseries are trying to ramp up.

Is that like the 1960s missile gap?

No shortage of pinecones or little pine seedlings popping up all over the place here. Wanna buy some?

 

[gcreekrch]

With you Ken, frustrating times we are going through and those who make money off us could care less.

 

[Banjo]

SumaGroulx | Healthier Soil, Healthier Plants, Healthier Yields, Healthier Money

Healthier Soil, Healthier Plants, Healthier Yields, Healthier Money

sumagroulx.com

Anybody know anything about this? Looks interesting to me.

 

[Nick Wagner]

Soil tests on my farm used to indicate organic matter less than 1%. In 2004 I started building fence and converted the entire farm to pasture. A soil test taken a year ago from one of the clay knobs, one of the worst spots, showed soil organic matter at 3.9%. Grazing management is the key, whatever name you call it. When the grass is gone, move them on.

 

[sim.-ang.king]

It's all about the money, and power. Environmentalist is how communist spell their name these day.

 

[Lee VanRoss]

To me, it is all about reducing inputs to make more money. And if practiced correctly, it does result in improved forage production. Plus, it's pretty to look at.

The current agriculture world is stuck on expensive inputs. All of which began within the last century. Took us away from that symbiotic relationship with the soil.

There is glyphosate in a box of cheerios for goodness sake. Just terrible if you ask me.

I know in my heart that all of these chemicals used in farming are the cause to so much of the illness experienced throughout the world. No way it couldn't be.

I do think there is much merit to trying to do things in a sustainable way.

Look at the projected fertilize prices for next year. No one can afford that. What did they do 100 years ago before chemical fertilizers? They used logic and observation.

My 2 cents.

A 100 years ago corn was planted in 40 inch rows with maybe a 12-15 thousand plant population per acre and a 65 bu per acre yield.

 

[Silver]

Yep, if we all farmed / ranched like they did 100 years ago starvation would be the leading cause of death.

 

[Walking W]

Rant to follow- If you don't want to hear it, just move on.

The real basis for all this "feel good" talk is " humans bad" but "nature good".
It's like species-wide self flagellation because we have been successful in using our brains and natural resources to improve our quality of life.
Right at the top of the list are any industries that produce and use energy for fuel or feedstock/fertilizer.
They have finally come up with something that has caught on with the general public, Climate Change. By that they mean mankind is solely responsible for ruining our planet because we are creating CO2 and methane and releasing it into the air. They mean to destroy any industry they claim is contributing to the releases, no matter the cost to everyone on the planet. They really haven't done a good job separating how much humans contribute to climate change or determined what the real cost would be to reverse what they perceive to be happening.
Get ready for increased costs for everything farming and ranching related, either directly or though taxation. In the mean time, all these kids growing up in the crowded cities are being indoctrinated with climate change theology. That's what it is! It's a religion! And these youngsters are beginning to vote in larger and larger numbers in all their glorified ignorance. Because of this, nothing will change until the pain associated with practicing this religion becomes unbearable to the voting public.

 

[Banjo]

A 100 years ago corn was planted in 40 inch rows with maybe a 12-15 thousand plant population per acre and a 65 bu per acre yield.

The open pollinated corn you speak of 100 years ago was probably twice the nutritional value than the RR corn planted today....we traded quality for quantity.

 

[wbvs58]

Yep, if we all farmed / ranched like they did 100 years ago starvation would be the leading cause of death.

Well Silver, that might be the solution to the worlds problems, a way to decrease our stocking rate of the planet.
It is good to hear from all over the world how farmers are doing what they need to do to be more productive and in doing so are improving their land and will leave it for the next generation in better condition than when they started and all this without the fanfare of all these feelgood labels and I think the majority of serious farmers are like this. If people want to categorise me as regenerative or sustainable, that's fine but it won't stop me from doing what I want to do, I'll push over and burn a tree if I need to, I'll put out fertiliser if I need to, I'll spray with chemicals if I need to. In a recent study on the New England area just a little south of me found that you won't be storing much carbon in our P deficient soils unless you topdress with P/S (superphosphate} fertiliser.

Ken

 

[SmokinM]

Yep, if we all farmed / ranched like they did 100 years ago starvation would be the leading cause of death.

Only for a couple years. The war that ensues will speed the process up also.

 

[sim.-ang.king]

The open pollinated corn you speak of 100 years ago was probably twice the nutritional value than the RR corn planted today....we traded quality for quantity.

Not necessarily, it may of been higher in protein, but it was lower in energy.
Just depends on which you want. I got better protein source so I my corn with more starch, to makem fat.

 

[Big Creek]

With his leadership you can bet they will be palm trees for use as shade.
(Palm tree throws no useable shade)

Let's go Brandon