4 ms·

Regenerative farming won't help immediately, but it does cut way down on the need for chemicals input while capturing massive amounts of carbon into the soil an

Regenerative farming won't help immediately, but it does cut way down on the need for chemicals input while capturing massive amounts of carbon into the soil and growing livestock in the same areas.

gruez 3y ago
>while capturing massive amounts of carbon into the soil Whats the mechanism for this and how much is "massive"? >and growing livestock in the same areas. Isn't this canceled out by the lower yields you're getting on the crops, to the extent that the overall yield is lower than if you used normal farming practices for the crops and dedicated pasture areas?
- mikewarot 3y ago
  The mechanism is building soil out of dirt. If we were to adopt regenerative agriculture worldwide, it could take about 1/5 of all the Carbon out of the atmosphere. (assuming my math is right)
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  > Whats the mechanism for this and how much is "massive"? Take a (hand) shovel. Put it into a corn field, and have a look at the soil. Now go to a forest, and do the same. Compare, and you will understand the mechanism, and the extent. Hint: in natural ecosystems, a good portion (if not majority) of all carbon is in the soil not above it. And much of that carbon stays in the soil for a looooong time.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    I.have done that, the.forest was unfertile sand just a few cm down while corn fields arw black dirt for as deep as I can dig. The real lesson above is location, I did the above in locations 1000km apart with very different soil profiles. Modern corn farming is mostly done in former tall grass prairie. (Corn is a grass) forests are mostly in former forests you cannot compare anything about them.
    - RetroTechie 3y ago
      True: location is important. Tropical vs. temperate, elevation, rainfall, etc. And of course its composition. The other lesson is that soils can take a long time to build up (on the order of ~1 cm. per year iirc, if that). Modern agriculture mostly takes from that, tending to leave degraded soils behind. Some agriculture 'breadbasket' areas are only that because soils there had centuries of relatively little disturbance to build up into a thick, fertile mass.
      - bluGill 3y ago
        Modern agriculture.build soil at the rate of about 1mm per year. Up until the 1930s it was really bad, but science has been looking at soil since then and that has gotten out to progressive farmers. Even the typical farmer who is more traditional has learned a lot and maintains existing soil. I doubt there is anything that will build soil at 1cm per year that us sustainable (you can maybe do that rate by taking good soil and moving it)
RetroTechie 3y ago
The basic problem is one of non-closed loops: Each harvest takes minerals out of the soil (as well as some soil). Regenerative farming may help the soil to replenish some of those minerals by freeing them from the rock portion of soils. But not at the rate harvest-after-harvest removes those. So you need to replace minerals taken out. Industrialized farming does this through minerals mined elsewhere. Which is hardly sustainable or eco-friendly. A solution would be to recover minerals from poop & urine. Probably this is done in the case of animals (their poop & urine back onto fields). But not in the case of human food. Human excrements are processed in wastewater facilities, and -due to a variety of reasons- minerals may be recovered, but rarely end up back on fields. Small substinence farmers can close those loops. Modern industrialized society can't (or at least, doesn't have good ways to do so). This is ignoring nitrogen. Which can be produced on-site if needed (eg. by rotation with nitrogen-fixating crops). Or specific trace minerals that may require a different approach.
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  Made me curious so I went looking for information. Incredibly frustrating that almost every high-level source focuses on how the water is cleaned and solids are removed. Removed where? Doesn’t say. Eventually I found one local source that says it’s incinerated. So the human biological cycle doesn’t return the solids to the earth but puts it into the atmosphere? That’s pretty crappy.
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    The heavier elements would be in the ash.
_c3ag 3y ago
regenerative farming couldn't be replicated [0] by anyone... [0] https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature... seriously, how do you expect land regenerating by adding thousands of cattle on it? if you roam in Brazil, you can find almost deserts in vegetation that have RICH diversity like the Pantanal, just because livestock was managed there for +25 years! and then owners stop activity for a number of years (to let flora thrive) to later raise corn or soy, which is way less aggressive and with modern practices they (the farms) have lifespans (if well managed) predicted by biologists of almost 100 years. (i worked in one for a brief period of time) the guy who proposed the "regenerative agriculture" movement always made big money from livestock and at some point even got in-between the government with a freaking study that concluded that they had to kill ~ 40,000 elephants (and they killed) for maintaining the health of the ecosystem.......... ⟨i think if we still made billiard balls out of elephants tusks, i wouldn't be surprised if that guy had a company that made them⟩ if you want to dive in esoteric practices to thrive food and sustainability, go vegan and maybe take a look at stuff like this [which doesn't have any meaningful replication so far]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1877343520300579 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18773... & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_G%C3%B6tsch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_G%C3%B6tsch
- alfred_wram 3y ago
  This is a more nuanced issue than this comment would lead you to believe. "the guy" is probably referencing Allan Savory, check out his Ted Talk about the elephant story. He gets a lot of undeserved aggression. Here's a link to some of Savory's responses to the Manbiot ("go vegan") perspective - https://savory.global/statement-on-the-allan-savory-george-monbiot-debate-at-oxford/ https://savory.global/statement-on-the-allan-savory-george-m...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - _c3ag 3y ago
    the person execute a poor study on ecosystem, concludes that 40,000 elephants should be killed to maintain other organisms... and he shouldn't be target of aggression? who knows if their political and military involvement didn't took part on the government liberating that shit! the guy cares _so much_ about life/sustainability that still eat meat/cheese (like mammals other than humans are really primitive creatures) and has livestock under his belt also, have you read the first link i send? his studies on land regeneration includes areas that were recovering after expelling livestock... this guy and his practice is a joke. not even entering into other sensible topics like animal welfare, production and efficiency of the kingdom plantae/fungi vs. animalia etc. maybe they should read a bit what science is observing and concluding after hundreds of years of research in something summarized like; https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/9781420046687/food-energy-society-david-pimentel-ph-marcia-pimentel https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/97814200466... edit: i mean, sure, everyone makes mistakes. sometimes they cost an entire set of thousands of mammals but the problem is after that, trying to lure consumers into a practice that not even 50 years of research on the subject concluded anything relevant [0] (to the point that we can't even differentiate efficiency between the default way of letting cattle pasture vs. holistic management), shouldn't be other motif to rant?. caring for the environment should be a black and white resolution with the best tools we have right now. life is too precious to fuck just because you want a steak at your table... and we know, for a long time that going vegan is the best way! or at least stop this freaking modern consumerism of animal products. [0]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338777621_A_half_century_of_Holistic_Management_what_does_the_evidence_reveal https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338777621_A_half_ce...

Regenerative farming won't help immediately, but it does cut way down on the need for chemicals input while capturing massive amounts of carbon into the soil and growing livestock in the same areas.

gruez 3y ago

>while capturing massive amounts of carbon into the soil Whats the mechanism for this and how much is "massive"? >and growing livestock in the same areas. Isn't this canceled out by the lower yields you're getting on the crops, to the extent that the overall yield is lower than if you used normal farming practices for the crops and dedicated pasture areas?

mikewarot 3y ago
The mechanism is building soil out of dirt. If we were to adopt regenerative agriculture worldwide, it could take about 1/5 of all the Carbon out of the atmosphere. (assuming my math is right)
RetroTechie 3y ago
> Whats the mechanism for this and how much is "massive"? Take a (hand) shovel. Put it into a corn field, and have a look at the soil. Now go to a forest, and do the same. Compare, and you will understand the mechanism, and the extent. Hint: in natural ecosystems, a good portion (if not majority) of all carbon is in the soil not above it. And much of that carbon stays in the soil for a looooong time.
- bluGill 3y ago
  I.have done that, the.forest was unfertile sand just a few cm down while corn fields arw black dirt for as deep as I can dig. The real lesson above is location, I did the above in locations 1000km apart with very different soil profiles. Modern corn farming is mostly done in former tall grass prairie. (Corn is a grass) forests are mostly in former forests you cannot compare anything about them.
  - RetroTechie 3y ago
    True: location is important. Tropical vs. temperate, elevation, rainfall, etc. And of course its composition. The other lesson is that soils can take a long time to build up (on the order of ~1 cm. per year iirc, if that). Modern agriculture mostly takes from that, tending to leave degraded soils behind. Some agriculture 'breadbasket' areas are only that because soils there had centuries of relatively little disturbance to build up into a thick, fertile mass.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Modern agriculture.build soil at the rate of about 1mm per year. Up until the 1930s it was really bad, but science has been looking at soil since then and that has gotten out to progressive farmers. Even the typical farmer who is more traditional has learned a lot and maintains existing soil. I doubt there is anything that will build soil at 1cm per year that us sustainable (you can maybe do that rate by taking good soil and moving it)

RetroTechie 3y ago

The basic problem is one of non-closed loops: Each harvest takes minerals out of the soil (as well as some soil). Regenerative farming may help the soil to replenish some of those minerals by freeing them from the rock portion of soils. But not at the rate harvest-after-harvest removes those. So you need to replace minerals taken out. Industrialized farming does this through minerals mined elsewhere. Which is hardly sustainable or eco-friendly. A solution would be to recover minerals from poop & urine. Probably this is done in the case of animals (their poop & urine back onto fields). But not in the case of human food. Human excrements are processed in wastewater facilities, and -due to a variety of reasons- minerals may be recovered, but rarely end up back on fields. Small substinence farmers can close those loops. Modern industrialized society can't (or at least, doesn't have good ways to do so). This is ignoring nitrogen. Which can be produced on-site if needed (eg. by rotation with nitrogen-fixating crops). Or specific trace minerals that may require a different approach.

Waterluvian 3y ago
Made me curious so I went looking for information. Incredibly frustrating that almost every high-level source focuses on how the water is cleaned and solids are removed. Removed where? Doesn’t say. Eventually I found one local source that says it’s incinerated. So the human biological cycle doesn’t return the solids to the earth but puts it into the atmosphere? That’s pretty crappy.
- whatshisface 3y ago
  The heavier elements would be in the ash.

_c3ag 3y ago

regenerative farming couldn't be replicated [0] by anyone... [0] https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature... seriously, how do you expect land regenerating by adding thousands of cattle on it? if you roam in Brazil, you can find almost deserts in vegetation that have RICH diversity like the Pantanal, just because livestock was managed there for +25 years! and then owners stop activity for a number of years (to let flora thrive) to later raise corn or soy, which is way less aggressive and with modern practices they (the farms) have lifespans (if well managed) predicted by biologists of almost 100 years. (i worked in one for a brief period of time) the guy who proposed the "regenerative agriculture" movement always made big money from livestock and at some point even got in-between the government with a freaking study that concluded that they had to kill ~ 40,000 elephants (and they killed) for maintaining the health of the ecosystem.......... ⟨i think if we still made billiard balls out of elephants tusks, i wouldn't be surprised if that guy had a company that made them⟩ if you want to dive in esoteric practices to thrive food and sustainability, go vegan and maybe take a look at stuff like this [which doesn't have any meaningful replication so far]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1877343520300579 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18773... & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_G%C3%B6tsch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_G%C3%B6tsch

alfred_wram 3y ago
This is a more nuanced issue than this comment would lead you to believe. "the guy" is probably referencing Allan Savory, check out his Ted Talk about the elephant story. He gets a lot of undeserved aggression. Here's a link to some of Savory's responses to the Manbiot ("go vegan") perspective - https://savory.global/statement-on-the-allan-savory-george-monbiot-debate-at-oxford/ https://savory.global/statement-on-the-allan-savory-george-m...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- _c3ag 3y ago
  the person execute a poor study on ecosystem, concludes that 40,000 elephants should be killed to maintain other organisms... and he shouldn't be target of aggression? who knows if their political and military involvement didn't took part on the government liberating that shit! the guy cares _so much_ about life/sustainability that still eat meat/cheese (like mammals other than humans are really primitive creatures) and has livestock under his belt also, have you read the first link i send? his studies on land regeneration includes areas that were recovering after expelling livestock... this guy and his practice is a joke. not even entering into other sensible topics like animal welfare, production and efficiency of the kingdom plantae/fungi vs. animalia etc. maybe they should read a bit what science is observing and concluding after hundreds of years of research in something summarized like; https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/9781420046687/food-energy-society-david-pimentel-ph-marcia-pimentel https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/97814200466... edit: i mean, sure, everyone makes mistakes. sometimes they cost an entire set of thousands of mammals but the problem is after that, trying to lure consumers into a practice that not even 50 years of research on the subject concluded anything relevant [0] (to the point that we can't even differentiate efficiency between the default way of letting cattle pasture vs. holistic management), shouldn't be other motif to rant?. caring for the environment should be a black and white resolution with the best tools we have right now. life is too precious to fuck just because you want a steak at your table... and we know, for a long time that going vegan is the best way! or at least stop this freaking modern consumerism of animal products. [0]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338777621_A_half_century_of_Holistic_Management_what_does_the_evidence_reveal https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338777621_A_half_ce...