3 ms·

I regularly advocate for regenerative agriculture. I have studied and practiced, on a small scale, regenerative methods. Pesticides and chemical fertilizers a

I regularly advocate for regenerative agriculture. I have studied and practiced, on a small scale, regenerative methods. Pesticides and chemical fertilizers are not needed for the abundance and we would be better off not using them. However, the shift from chemical farming to regenerative practices cannot be forced or rushed. It takes about 3 years to bring the soil back to life and get it working as the plant's stomach and yields to match or beat chemical farming. Forcing a change in land management practices is a recipe for absolute disaster of famine and likely war. Due to the higher profitability of regenerative agriculture I am confident that the majority of farms will shift to regenerative in the decades to come. The only thing that can stop the transition is government intervention to try to "save" chemical farmers by subsidizing their chemical inputs. We just have to stay out of the way and let the transition happen.

algoatecorn 4y ago
Edible calories per acre per season are one thing. Labor cost per acre are another, and that's the key element we need to figure out if we want to transition. Right now the economics don't work out.
- metalliqaz 4y ago
  What makes the labor costs higher?
gruez 4y ago
>Due to the higher profitability of regenerative agriculture That might be true today, but will it hold into the future? Organic agriculture is also more profitable than conventional agriculture, even though it's less productive and has higher costs. The only reason it's more profitable is that people are willing to pay a premium for it. Obviously that's not something that's scalable. You might be able to convince a good chunk of bay area professionals to buy your organic/regenerative agriculture crops at 3x prices, but once you saturated that market you'll have much more trouble convincing the rest of the country to into paying 3x (or whatever) for their produce.
jjoonathan 4y ago
> yields to match or beat chemical farming Is it true? "Chemical farming" only happened because the yields were better. Much better. What were farmers doing wrong? This sounds like another "we don't count fallow fields in the divisor" hustle. I'd love to be wrong. > Pesticides and chemical fertilizers are not needed How do you control for herd immunity? One pesticide-free field will never see a locust plague, a thousand pesticide-free fields absolutely will. > government intervention to try to "save" chemical farmers by subsidizing their chemical inputs Is this really an anti-intervention argument or is it an attempt to frame the absence of steep fines on fertilizers and pesticides as a subsidy?
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  Chemical farming happened because the bomb makers wanted to continue selling ammonia and giving ammonia to plants does make them grow big. But, it is a shortcut and destroys the symbiotic relationship with the soil life. Initially the soil still had a lot of organic matter and life in it and it only took a small amount of fertilizer. After killing the soil life there is no nitrogen, carbon, or phosphorus cycle, the OM erodes away, and the remaining dirt becomes compacted. As the soil degrades it has taken continually more fertilizer to keep yields up. Pesticides destroy the food chain. They kill pests and their predators which makes it easier for the pests to thrive. Predators keep pest populations in check but do not eliminate them. Fining the use of fertilizers and pesticides would be disastrous. If fertilizers and pesticides are seen as the sole way to grow all of our food the government will absolutely try to step in and pay for a portion or all of the fertilizers and pesticides as prices increase. This is the only way that chemical farming will remain dominant. It is simply becoming too costly to continue chemical farming. Like I said before, the best course is to just let the transition happen at the rate that it happens.

algoatecorn 4y ago

Edible calories per acre per season are one thing. Labor cost per acre are another, and that's the key element we need to figure out if we want to transition. Right now the economics don't work out.

metalliqaz 4y ago
What makes the labor costs higher?

gruez 4y ago

>Due to the higher profitability of regenerative agriculture That might be true today, but will it hold into the future? Organic agriculture is also more profitable than conventional agriculture, even though it's less productive and has higher costs. The only reason it's more profitable is that people are willing to pay a premium for it. Obviously that's not something that's scalable. You might be able to convince a good chunk of bay area professionals to buy your organic/regenerative agriculture crops at 3x prices, but once you saturated that market you'll have much more trouble convincing the rest of the country to into paying 3x (or whatever) for their produce.

jjoonathan 4y ago

> yields to match or beat chemical farming Is it true? "Chemical farming" only happened because the yields were better. Much better. What were farmers doing wrong? This sounds like another "we don't count fallow fields in the divisor" hustle. I'd love to be wrong. > Pesticides and chemical fertilizers are not needed How do you control for herd immunity? One pesticide-free field will never see a locust plague, a thousand pesticide-free fields absolutely will. > government intervention to try to "save" chemical farmers by subsidizing their chemical inputs Is this really an anti-intervention argument or is it an attempt to frame the absence of steep fines on fertilizers and pesticides as a subsidy?

tastyfreeze 4y ago
Chemical farming happened because the bomb makers wanted to continue selling ammonia and giving ammonia to plants does make them grow big. But, it is a shortcut and destroys the symbiotic relationship with the soil life. Initially the soil still had a lot of organic matter and life in it and it only took a small amount of fertilizer. After killing the soil life there is no nitrogen, carbon, or phosphorus cycle, the OM erodes away, and the remaining dirt becomes compacted. As the soil degrades it has taken continually more fertilizer to keep yields up. Pesticides destroy the food chain. They kill pests and their predators which makes it easier for the pests to thrive. Predators keep pest populations in check but do not eliminate them. Fining the use of fertilizers and pesticides would be disastrous. If fertilizers and pesticides are seen as the sole way to grow all of our food the government will absolutely try to step in and pay for a portion or all of the fertilizers and pesticides as prices increase. This is the only way that chemical farming will remain dominant. It is simply becoming too costly to continue chemical farming. Like I said before, the best course is to just let the transition happen at the rate that it happens.