So, when I read a media statement from Beef + Lamb on regenerative agriculture I was interested.
The release told me B+LNZ is doing a significant global study into regenerative agriculture.
Significant, in my dictionary, means important or momentous and global means relating to the whole world.
I wondered why B+LNZ is committing levy money on an important or momentous worldwide study of regenerative agriculture.
Chief executive Sam McIvor said there is increasing interest in regenerative agriculture both in NZ and globally and our farmers are asking it to lead in that space.
I can but take Sam at his word but I haven’t heard anything about it from farmers in my circle or from a media search.
I rang B+LNZ who were helpful. There is no finalised budget yet, they will be running the project and they’ll have a paper by the end of the year.
So, what is regenerative agriculture?
It’s quite difficult to find out as there is a considerable lack of strong, peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
It’s even hard to find a solid scientific definition.
With regenerative agriculture you move animals around in herds, let them graze the pasture at its optimum quality and quantity and return dung and urine to the soil, all of which we do.
You then introduce earthworms to assist the organic matter being incorporated into the soil and irrigate where necessary.
The result is the organic matter is maintained or increased.
Then comes the rub.
Regenerative agriculture on degraded soils overseas has used animal management, fertiliser and irrigation to build organic matter.
So, fertiliser is critical whether it is natural, from dung and urine, or artificial.
British research shows organic matter from both farmyard and artificially produced fertiliser have the same effects, which raises serious questions.
We might be increasing organic matter, which is good, but to do so we need to keep applying fertiliser and irrigation, which the regenerative agriculture disciples reject.
Going to the internet, yet again, and asking it if regenerative agriculture actually works you get a pile of unscientific hyperbole.
The media coverage in NZ hasn’t been robust either.
There was a supportive article quoting agroecologist soil consultant Nicole Masters who works with farmers in NZ, Australia, the United States and Canada. I hadn’t previously heard of her.
Again going to the internet I find she has written a book, For the Love of Soil. She graduated in 1999 with an ecology degree with a focus in soil science and describes her interests as a musterer, diver and explorer.
I support anyone who gets work published but like it peer reviewed and trying to find peer reviewed scientific evidence is challenging.
You can read how in the US regenerative agriculture increased soil carbon to 6%. In NZ our soil carbon is 8%.
Advocates for the practice say regenerative agriculture cuts inputs and sequesters carbon.
American research suggests soil carbon has been increased by eight tonnes a hectare a year.
A paper presented to the Massey University Farmed Landscapes Research Centre conference earlier this month by Dr Ants Roberts and Dr Jacqueline Rowarth and Mike Manning is worth reading.
My understanding is if you want to increase carbon you need to increase inputs.
Any decrease in inputs results in a decrease in soil carbon and more nitrogen being released to the environment.
In addition, a drying environment means more carbon is released, which is likely to happen with global warming.
That can be mitigated by irrigation.
I also found an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report that showed NZ agricultural emissions are declining.
So, my point is NZ agriculture is good now.
We can improve but I remain unconvinced on regenerative agriculture.
Facts could sway me but facts are lacking.
One “fact” presented was that meat grown under regenerative agriculture is more nutritious than our conventional production methods.
Despite some hours of research I could find absolutely no evidence to support that.
My position is simple. Anything that can improve the value of our produce overseas is to be encouraged.
I would, however, sincerely suggest B+LNZ’s promise of global research into regenerative agriculture is based on fad not fact.
There’s ample scientific evidence available now. They should analyse it, which doesn’t require a significant global research project.
With the daily threats beef and lamb farmers are under in NZ it is a waste of levies.
