| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming 10:06 - Feb 26 with 1358 views | Steve_M |
More interesting than repeating the same football conversations for the fifth day in a row:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/25/the-end-of-farming-rewilding
The move towards re-wilding is largely a good thing in my opinion, perhaps not everywhere in the UK but breaking up the large industrial farms that have decimated wildlife. It's one area where being outside the CAP might be to our advantage, quite how that all stacks up with the seemingly desperation to import US food 'standards' is another matter though. |  |
| |  |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 10:18 - Feb 26 with 1329 views | BackToRussia |
Haven't read it but the rewilding thing seems pretty stupid to me. Of course the land will regenerate if you simply leave it alone and don't farm it.
Proper farms have wild bits next to the cash crops and build the soil. It's perfectly and easily feasible to do both on the same holding.
It's odd to me that places like knepp get so much attention when they have done nothing to solve anything. |  |
| |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 10:28 - Feb 26 with 1313 views | BrianTablet |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 10:18 - Feb 26 by BackToRussia |
Haven't read it but the rewilding thing seems pretty stupid to me. Of course the land will regenerate if you simply leave it alone and don't farm it.
Proper farms have wild bits next to the cash crops and build the soil. It's perfectly and easily feasible to do both on the same holding.
It's odd to me that places like knepp get so much attention when they have done nothing to solve anything. |
"Proper farms have wild bits next to the cash crops and build the soil. It's perfectly and easily feasible to do both on the same holding."
A two-metre wide 'nature bank' isn't going to help anything though.
Over-farming soil is killing the land. The soil is compacted, nutrient-deficient and eroding at a rapid rate. It also does nothing to hold up water and so increases flooding further down the line.
If the existing situation works so well, why do farmers need to dump so much fertiliser on their crops? |  |
| |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 10:31 - Feb 26 with 1304 views | BackToRussia |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 10:28 - Feb 26 by BrianTablet |
"Proper farms have wild bits next to the cash crops and build the soil. It's perfectly and easily feasible to do both on the same holding."
A two-metre wide 'nature bank' isn't going to help anything though.
Over-farming soil is killing the land. The soil is compacted, nutrient-deficient and eroding at a rapid rate. It also does nothing to hold up water and so increases flooding further down the line.
If the existing situation works so well, why do farmers need to dump so much fertiliser on their crops? |
I'm not talking about those idiots.
I am talking about no dig, organic, polyculture, small scale, high yield agriculture.
And actually a 2m bank does quite a lot. | |
| |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 11:49 - Feb 26 with 1251 views | Guthrum |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 10:28 - Feb 26 by BrianTablet |
"Proper farms have wild bits next to the cash crops and build the soil. It's perfectly and easily feasible to do both on the same holding."
A two-metre wide 'nature bank' isn't going to help anything though.
Over-farming soil is killing the land. The soil is compacted, nutrient-deficient and eroding at a rapid rate. It also does nothing to hold up water and so increases flooding further down the line.
If the existing situation works so well, why do farmers need to dump so much fertiliser on their crops? |
Yield rates. They need to squeeze the maximum amount possible out of their land in order to make a living. They can't afford to leave fields fallow any more, unless someone is paying them to do it. [Post edited 26 Feb 2020 11:49]
|  |
| |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 11:57 - Feb 26 with 1241 views | BackToRussia |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 11:49 - Feb 26 by Guthrum |
Yield rates. They need to squeeze the maximum amount possible out of their land in order to make a living. They can't afford to leave fields fallow any more, unless someone is paying them to do it. [Post edited 26 Feb 2020 11:49]
|
Their yields are down because they have destroyed the soil. Field margins are going to attract wildlife, but so are fecund and healthy soils, and produce food. It is not either or. | |
| |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 12:25 - Feb 26 with 1220 views | Dubtractor |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 10:28 - Feb 26 by BrianTablet |
"Proper farms have wild bits next to the cash crops and build the soil. It's perfectly and easily feasible to do both on the same holding."
A two-metre wide 'nature bank' isn't going to help anything though.
Over-farming soil is killing the land. The soil is compacted, nutrient-deficient and eroding at a rapid rate. It also does nothing to hold up water and so increases flooding further down the line.
If the existing situation works so well, why do farmers need to dump so much fertiliser on their crops? |
I was at a conference a few weeks ago (not farming conference but a related subject) and some of the predictions of soil degradation in southern Europe are pretty scary. |  |
| |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 12:40 - Feb 26 with 1191 views | BackToRussia |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 12:25 - Feb 26 by Dubtractor |
I was at a conference a few weeks ago (not farming conference but a related subject) and some of the predictions of soil degradation in southern Europe are pretty scary. |
It's the same all over. Developing countries worse as there tends to be less regulation or less enforcement of regulation. There is a large black market now in herbicides and pesticides where they have been banned. | |
| |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 14:09 - Feb 26 with 1144 views | Guthrum |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 11:57 - Feb 26 by BackToRussia |
Their yields are down because they have destroyed the soil. Field margins are going to attract wildlife, but so are fecund and healthy soils, and produce food. It is not either or. |
It's not the yields having dropped, more that they need to be pushed up above normal levels. While better than in many places (due to our fertile soils and benevolent climate), Britain still suffered regular crop failures historically.
It's not good for the soil, long-term, but some of that is due to deeper ploughing and the loss of good soil in the Fens (where it's dried out, turned to dust and blown away). [Post edited 26 Feb 2020 14:11]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 14:25 - Feb 26 with 1130 views | BigManBlue |
British farming can improve a lot. But re-wilding on a huge scale is probably, in the medium to reasonably long term, only going to result in us importing more food from countries where the environmental impact is even crappier - nationally it would be amazing, globally it screams of shirking our part in what has to be a collective responsibility.
I'd rather we promoted British farming (particularly small farmers) with an emphasis on local, quality, sustainable goods, but I realise that's a) unlikely to happen on a large enough scale and b) unpopular.
Good read though, thanks for the link. |  |
| |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 14:40 - Feb 26 with 1120 views | jonbull88 |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 10:28 - Feb 26 by BrianTablet |
"Proper farms have wild bits next to the cash crops and build the soil. It's perfectly and easily feasible to do both on the same holding."
A two-metre wide 'nature bank' isn't going to help anything though.
Over-farming soil is killing the land. The soil is compacted, nutrient-deficient and eroding at a rapid rate. It also does nothing to hold up water and so increases flooding further down the line.
If the existing situation works so well, why do farmers need to dump so much fertiliser on their crops? |
It a much more complex issue then just doing this and doing that. To “rewild” an area will take a long time, hundreds of years if you think of an area that is properly rewilded.
People need to be smarter when working the land. We spread a lot of human and pig poo. Both adds organic matter to the soil and help improve structure. Our yields are very good thanks in part to this over the last 20 years.
When I comes to the water aspect we want land to both hold water and drain relatively quickly in wet times. Most of our land is well drained and has been for well over 40 years( at a considerable cost), flooding round here has got worse in the last 10 years, why? I blame people not maintaining ditches and rivers.
As regard to fertiliser, a good amount of poo every 2-4 years does reduce need for fertiliser but then again plants do need feeding sometimes. Also it gives plants a “get up and go” after a cold winter as well. |  | | |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 15:00 - Feb 26 with 1107 views | BackToRussia |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 14:09 - Feb 26 by Guthrum |
It's not the yields having dropped, more that they need to be pushed up above normal levels. While better than in many places (due to our fertile soils and benevolent climate), Britain still suffered regular crop failures historically.
It's not good for the soil, long-term, but some of that is due to deeper ploughing and the loss of good soil in the Fens (where it's dried out, turned to dust and blown away). [Post edited 26 Feb 2020 14:11]
|
Haha, what? Yes they have. Chemical fertilisers literally destroy soil biology.
More chemical fertiliser and more herbicide and pesticides need to be applied each year as they destroy it further, meaning farmers lose money due to huge costs.
Chemical farmers transitioning to organic don't often get greater yields, but their costs are so much lower that their profit goes up. | |
| |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 15:14 - Feb 26 with 1088 views | BackToRussia |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 14:40 - Feb 26 by jonbull88 |
It a much more complex issue then just doing this and doing that. To “rewild” an area will take a long time, hundreds of years if you think of an area that is properly rewilded.
People need to be smarter when working the land. We spread a lot of human and pig poo. Both adds organic matter to the soil and help improve structure. Our yields are very good thanks in part to this over the last 20 years.
When I comes to the water aspect we want land to both hold water and drain relatively quickly in wet times. Most of our land is well drained and has been for well over 40 years( at a considerable cost), flooding round here has got worse in the last 10 years, why? I blame people not maintaining ditches and rivers.
As regard to fertiliser, a good amount of poo every 2-4 years does reduce need for fertiliser but then again plants do need feeding sometimes. Also it gives plants a “get up and go” after a cold winter as well. |
Manure and Tillage does the same thing to warm up soil. Just stop using them. | |
| |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 15:16 - Feb 26 with 1085 views | StokieBlue |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 15:00 - Feb 26 by BackToRussia |
Haha, what? Yes they have. Chemical fertilisers literally destroy soil biology.
More chemical fertiliser and more herbicide and pesticides need to be applied each year as they destroy it further, meaning farmers lose money due to huge costs.
Chemical farmers transitioning to organic don't often get greater yields, but their costs are so much lower that their profit goes up. |
A couple of questions if you have the time:
What fertilisers are used in organic farming? Is it mainly manure?
Would you be opposed to organic farming methodology but with GM crops?
SB |  | | |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 15:31 - Feb 26 with 1062 views | BackToRussia |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 15:16 - Feb 26 by StokieBlue |
A couple of questions if you have the time:
What fertilisers are used in organic farming? Is it mainly manure?
Would you be opposed to organic farming methodology but with GM crops?
SB |
Hi Stokie. Yes, animal manure is still the primary source of fertility. This is usually a byproduct of animal farming, e.g dairy and poultry farms but traditionallly farms were always mixed, animals grazed, fertilised and worked. And of course produced food and produce, milk, meat, wool etc.
However there are infinite ways to provide fertility, including compost. Plants cannot so to speak eat manure, the manure is a source of food for microfauna and bacteria and fungi which then secrete nitrates etc that plants can take up. Therefore any source of organic matter is potentially useful as it can break down and provide nutrients to plants. Many farmers now use compost as their main source of fertility, with small amounts of animal manure added in.
On top of that, seaweed, rock dust and many other naturally occuring substances have a part to play.
Re gm, I see it as unnecessary. Usually it is just there to try and remedy the problems caused by chemical farming. We did perfectly well breeding plants naturally for 5000 years.
Thanks for asking. | |
| |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 16:09 - Feb 26 with 1029 views | StokieBlue |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 15:31 - Feb 26 by BackToRussia |
Hi Stokie. Yes, animal manure is still the primary source of fertility. This is usually a byproduct of animal farming, e.g dairy and poultry farms but traditionallly farms were always mixed, animals grazed, fertilised and worked. And of course produced food and produce, milk, meat, wool etc.
However there are infinite ways to provide fertility, including compost. Plants cannot so to speak eat manure, the manure is a source of food for microfauna and bacteria and fungi which then secrete nitrates etc that plants can take up. Therefore any source of organic matter is potentially useful as it can break down and provide nutrients to plants. Many farmers now use compost as their main source of fertility, with small amounts of animal manure added in.
On top of that, seaweed, rock dust and many other naturally occuring substances have a part to play.
Re gm, I see it as unnecessary. Usually it is just there to try and remedy the problems caused by chemical farming. We did perfectly well breeding plants naturally for 5000 years.
Thanks for asking. |
Thanks for the responses.
On the fertiliser, would that scale up well to the farming requirements of a nation? I can see it would work well for smaller farms or a historically smaller population but there are a lot of us now. Interesting that animal manure isn't a main part of the fertiliser now - makes some arguments for eating meat rather redundant it would seem as they are based around requiring the manure for other crops.
Seaweed has been used for a long time in various countries for fertliser as you point out. Just outside Porto there is a town where tourists can take rides on the boats they used to use to farm seaweed for fertiliser.
On the GM question, you are right that we have bred plants naturally for thousands of years (although the end result is just as much a hybridisation as GM could be). Rather than remedy issues with chemical farming I was thinking more along the lines of increasing yields and also adding vitamins although both of these tend to be centered around rice (see golden rice for instance which aims to combat vitamin A issues in children).
SB | | | |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 17:10 - Feb 26 with 998 views | BackToRussia |
| Guardian Long Read on the Future of Farming on 16:09 - Feb 26 by StokieBlue |
Thanks for the responses.
On the fertiliser, would that scale up well to the farming requirements of a nation? I can see it would work well for smaller farms or a historically smaller population but there are a lot of us now. Interesting that animal manure isn't a main part of the fertiliser now - makes some arguments for eating meat rather redundant it would seem as they are based around requiring the manure for other crops.
Seaweed has been used for a long time in various countries for fertliser as you point out. Just outside Porto there is a town where tourists can take rides on the boats they used to use to farm seaweed for fertiliser.
On the GM question, you are right that we have bred plants naturally for thousands of years (although the end result is just as much a hybridisation as GM could be). Rather than remedy issues with chemical farming I was thinking more along the lines of increasing yields and also adding vitamins although both of these tend to be centered around rice (see golden rice for instance which aims to combat vitamin A issues in children).
SB |
There were, historically, shortages of manure. The thing is, you only need a lot of manure because of heavy tillage (ploughing, rotovating, etc). Any form of this will oxidise organic matter in the soil, aka burn it up. So people were applying manure mainly to negate their own actions. This is why farming is such a huge source of Co2 emissions. Pioneer agriculturists like Charles Dowding in this country, and all over (as well as native peoples etc who have been doing it for millennia), have proven that you do not need to dig or plough to farm. Large scale applications of compost can block out weeds as well as providing fine tilth to plant into. This makes the production of compost an absolutely crucial part of farming. Many advocate making this on site, as you are essentially "robbing" organic matter from one area and applying it onto yours. High standard farming is about using no off site inputs whatsoever, and generating all your fertility on site.
Yes, stock free farming is the name for using no animal based manures or animals on the holding. I would say that this goes a bit too far, animals are really useful in managing land, but it is absolutely possible (and with high yields) to not use animals at all.
I completely forgot to mention green manures which are another key facet. These are crops grown for a year that are then tilled into the soil the following year (although in the last 20 years, innovators have found a "no till" way of terminating a green manure crop and planting the cash crop directly into it). Nitrogen fixing legumes are always grown in these mixes, so they generate nitrogen, as well as organic matter.
So there is absolutely zero need for artificial fertilisers or herbicide/pesticides.
Re GM. I do see the argument for it to some extent, but it just seems to be asking for problems. You have the question of who then owns genetic information, and who controls putting GM stuff out there. Once it's out there there's no going back. While you have big corporate interest involved in all this I wouldn't trust them with it whatsoever. However I can imagine a state controlled GM project that potentially does some good things.
On the question of yields, people are doing amazing things with natural resources. They have found ways to frack beneficial fungi and bacteria and other soil biology into already growing crops. They are growing perfect fields of crops with absolutely zero fertiliser (natural or chemical), simply playing with the soil's natural biology. This natural biology is the reason why things like forests (aka natural systems) do not require any external inputs. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
