In defence of regenerative agriculture

Comments attacking regenerative agriculture and organic farming could be termed, at the least, very biased.

The focus of science has changed so that the commercialisation of science is driving research to prove the benefits of a company's product for commercial gain, rather than solving industry-good challenges.

Surely there are conflicts of interest when scientists are called in to promote a company product or question the value of another.

Why is scientific policy treated differently to corporate boards or even school boards of trustees where a person must step aside from a discussion where they have a conflict of interest?

Allegations of cherry-picking reports are a bit rich when we hear there is no research that proves organic or regenerative agriculture is any better than conventional farming.

Farmers can simply search Rodale Institute in the United States, a 40-year trial comparing organic versus conventional cropping farming.

It found organic gives comparable yields after a conversion period, 45 per cent less energy use and 40 per cent fewer carbon emissions and more profit.

One only has to look back in history to see science is not black and white and that personal agendas and funding may also cloud the narrative.

Ancel Keys was an American scientist who developed the diet-heart hypothesis that a high saturated fat diet caused heart disease, back in the early 1960s. He analysed data from 22 countries but only used the data from eight countries that proved his hypothesis.

He then ran a 41/2-year trial in a mental hospital to prove the hypothesis. When the results showed the high saturated fat group had 27 per cent fewer heart attacks, he buried the results.

This science was adopted worldwide and contributed to the poor health outcomes of millions of people until it was finally retracted in 2013.

The attacks on regen-ag and organics conveniently leave out the major component of our soils, the biological aspects.

Our soil is the most complex ecosystem on the planet; there are billions of living organisms and millions of species in just one teaspoon of soil.

We have only just begun to understand some of the complex relationships that exist in the soil and there is a touch of arrogance from some scientists who make sweeping statements without understanding or acknowledging the major biological properties of the soil biome.

The narrative is always about the chemical inputs, never the biological relationships.

When we buy biological products such as seaweed-based ones, it's not for the percentage of each chemical element they have but how they stimulate and feed the biology in the soil that matters.

The case for organics, I appreciate, is a red flag for many farmers.

It tends to be judged by the worst farmer in the district compared with the best examples of conventional farming.

Organics may never be the largest farm system in New Zealand, but the industry continues to grow.

The value of organic goods and services in New Zealand was $720 million in 2020 it has been growing at 20 per cent over the last three years.

Globally the organic food market was $221 billion in 2021 and growing at 9.7 per cent a year.

We have multinational corporates such as Patagonia and Danone wanting their farmers to move to regenerative farming. There is a massive worldwide demand for regen-ag and organic food which New Zealand is ideally placed to supply.

But I hear the chorus that the world will starve if we all go organic.

The facts are we already produce enough food for 10 billion people, but we waste between 30-40 per cent.

We also have a worldwide population that is 13 per cent obese and another 39 per cent overweight, so some of us are on double or triple maintenance feed levels.

The recent Sri Lanka government decision to force farmers to go organic was always going to be a disaster.

You can't go cold turkey on soils highly dependent on synthetic fertilisers but with a managed transition over three to five years, production can be maintained as many regen farmers in New Zealand have proved.

Regenerative agriculture has been looked on as a threat to our current farming systems.

Farmers need to look at it as an opportunity to manage their soils, plants and animals as an integrated ecosystem.

It doesn't have restrictive standards like organics, and it focuses on outcomes.

The outcomes include improved soil and plant biodiversity, less reliance on synthetic fertilisers including nitrogen, lower input costs and fewer environmental issues to contend with.

You can jump on the regenerative agriculture bus at any level and try aspects on your own farm without having to make major changes. We are all scientists at a farm level when we change inputs and measure the changes in the vat or on the bottom line.

This country will take time to develop a system unique to our own microclimates, but the seeds have been sown.

I believe the future farming innovation will come from the regenerative sector.

We need to honour Gwen Grelet, a senior researcher at Landcare Research who co-authored the first study on regenerative agriculture in New Zealand

I believe that comments from the science community denouncing her work and the lack of science because she went against the narrative were nothing more than bully-boy tactics.

An organic regenerative brand could be the gold standard for farming in New Zealand and a logical progression for farmers who have reached good performance levels and low input costs with regenerative agriculture.

It would allow new opportunities into high-value markets at a premium above other production systems.¦

Allan Richardson is an organic and regenerative farmer in West Otago and a board member of Organics Aotearoa NZ