Back Issues

Written by James Warne form Soil First Farming

Dihydrogen Monoxide or DHMO has been used for years to improve the distribution and performance of soil acting residual herbicides along with other uses such as a solvent, coolant, and used extensively as a fire retardant. It is critical for life, but deadly if too much is imbibed. You’ve probably heard of DHMO by its more common name – water. The slightly flippant tone of the opening paragraph belies a message of real importance when it comes to simple and practical advice on the use of soil residual chemistry. The real message is if you want greater efficacy from your herbicide spend, use more water.

This year has seen, in many areas, a massive seed return from the common grassweeds, brome, blackgrass, ryegrass etc. The last two autumns have also proved to be very tricky for crop establishment, both of which may combine into the perfect storm of earlier drilling and large seed banks ready to germinate. Trial work (by Agrovista) reveals that pre-em herbicide efficacy can be improved by the addition of more water. At 100l/ha a programme (see graph below) using DFF/FFT/PDM mix achieved just 50% control of blackgrass, But the same programme with 300l/ha water achieved over 90% control. Can you afford to ignore this evidence?

DFF & FFT costs in the region of £20/ha at full rate, Pendimethalin is in the region of £20/ha. Prosulfocarb at recommended rate is circa £30/ha. An extra 200l/ha of water costs £0.4/ ha. To nearly double your blackgrass control. Of course, it’s not quite that straightforward. The above trial was conducted using twin flange fan nozzles (forward and back), none of those expensive air induction or ‘product’ type nozzles. Spray pattern was fine, 3 bar pressure and a moderately low forward speed of 10km/h, (trial results below). Just to be clear the graph above is showing that to achieve above 95% control of blackgrass use 300 litres of water, with forward & backward facing flat fans nozzles at a forward speed of 10 kph. Research by Stephen Moss et al has shown that in most situations a minimum of 95% control is required to reduce seed return.

Those of you who are BASE – UK members also have the privilege of being able to watch Chris Martin’s excellent presentation of the correct choice of sprayer nozzle for different situations. Those who are following a Conservation Agriculture strategy will hopefully have resisted the urge to do a little light surface cultivation and will now have all the weed seed on the surface. Excepting the fact that there will always be a little seed which germinates from depth, a legacy of historical cultivation. With the seed on the surface it is now in better place to be controlled with actives such as flufenacet (FFT) and pendimethalin (PDM).

These two key actives provide the backbone of many preemergence herbicide stacks and are probably the most cost effective too. They are primarily taken up by the roots of the germinating grass weeds. Therefore the roots of the blackgrass plants have to come into contact with the herbicide to be taken up and be effective. If the weed seed is emerging from depth the germinating seed roots are very unlikely to encounter the active ingredient and can happily push its cotyledon through the layer of herbicide on the soil surface without harm.

Combine this strategy with spring cropping, wider rotations, more broadleaved cropping etc and you should find that grass weeds become less problematic year-on-year.

Future Farming Podcast – Janet Hughes and The Team

Introduction

From the series of Future Farming podcasts, in this one Janet Hughes has chosen to talk to Gabe Brown.

A familiar name with our readers (his name featuring in about half our issues of Direct Driller), Gabe has been named one of the twenty-five most influential agricultural leaders in the United States. He farms at Brown’s Ranch, a diversified 5,000 acre farm and ranch in North Dakota, with his wife Shelly and son Paul. He is one of the pioneers of the soil health movement. His book, “Dirt to Soil, One Family’s Journey Into Regenerative Agriculture.” Was featured in our recommended reading and has been quoted by many farmers on here, including Tom Sewell and Tom Chapman. If you haven’t read the book, it well worth a few hours of your time to understand how Gabe and Paul run their operation and how they have got to where they are today.

Gabe is also a partner in the regenerative farming consultancy Understanding Ag and an instructor for the Soil Health Academy, which teaches the power and importance of healthy functioning ecosystems. In this Podcast, Janet and Gabe talk about education in farming, shortening the supply chain and the six principles of soil health. Those who have read “Dirt to Soil” will realise he has added another one to the 5 mentioned in the book.

Janet Hughes: Hello everyone and welcome to episode three of the Future Farming podcast, which is the podcast of the Future Farming programme here in Defra, where we share the fascinating conversations that we have as part of the programme with everyone who’s interested in what we’re doing. And today I have the great pleasure of welcoming to the podcast Gabe Brown, author of Dirt to Soil, North Dakota farmer and leading regenerative agriculture practitioner, who’s going to share with us today some of his insights about the journey he’s been on and the lessons he’s learned, and what we can learn more broadly from what he’s doing.

Gabe Brown: I’m so excited about the direction that your country is heading with farm subsidies. I gotta tell you, I’m a bit jealous. Oh yeah, I’m a bit jealous because, well, just yesterday I was on, I was on a TV show talking about this and how we pay farmers based on yield and pounds, and nothing based on ecosystem services and nutrientdense food, and it’s just, the current model we have drives over-production and, you know, increased supplies, and you’re just stuck in this vortex of low farm profitability and so then subsidies increase, and that’s just bad for everyone.

Janet: That’s definitely the conclusion we’ve reached here, but the problem is because we’ve had subsidies for such a long time, moving away from them is a really complicated and difficult thing for farmers and for everybody, really, because it’s embedded.

Gabe: We need to do what they, yeah, we need to do what they did in New Zealand, just just drop it.

Janet: Do you think so?

Gabe: Ah, in all honesty, that would drive the biggest change on the landscape, okay? Farmers, ranchers are extremely resilient and they will adopt quickly if forced into doing it and, you read my book, you know how I was forced, and I tell people, best thing that could ever happen to me and now, you know, I have not accepted a penny of government subsidies for years. My business partners, they do not accept any government subsidies because our goal is to show people that a farm, a ranch can be profitable without it, and we’re all extremely profitable.

Now I’m not saying that it would not be nice to be paid for ecosystem services that we provide, you know, um, whether it be carbon, although I think, we really need to look at water, and biodiversity, and soil health, things like that first. Carbon is a part of it, um, the carbon flow, but you know, as you know, it’s extremely difficult to measure carbon accurately.

Janet: What do you think government should be doing, if not paying the subsidies, what should, what’s the ideal situation, do you think?

Gabe: I think there’s a place for, and I was asked this question yesterday, I said I think there’s a place for bridging the J curve, so to speak, as farmers, ranchers adopt these regenerative practices and realise that, you know, so many people think that, well, if I move to regenerative farming or ranching, which is what we typically call it, you know, there, it’s going to be a big cost incurred and I’m going to lose money. That’s not true at all. So our business, UnderstandingAg, our consulting business, we’re consulting on over 22 million acres across North America right now, and we increase profitability for most of our clients within the first two years. Increased profitability, and the way we do that is through proper soil testing, proper use of inputs. Okay, the vast majority of farmers and ranchers are grossly over fertilising, over, you know, heavy use of chemicals, insecticides etc. Those are not necessary, and we walk farmers and ranchers down that path, okay, we do the correct soil testing, find out biologically what’s in your soil, and then we’re able to start cutting them back on inputs.

 So what’s mostly needed by the government, in my opinion, is education. Government needs to educate. You don’t know what you don’t know, you know. I had no idea about the six principles of soil health when I moved, started moving down this path 25-plus years ago. I had to learn things the hard way. Well, think of if you’re a farmer or a rancher, where are you getting your information? Well, you’re getting some of it from colleges, you’re getting it from government agencies, but you’re getting a lot of it from your suppliers, whether it be fertiliser, chemical, you know, seed feed, whatever the case may be, they’re telling you, but do they really understand how ecosystems function? Do they understand the importance of carbon, the importance of biology in the soil? How farmers and ranchers through their management can affect the small water cycle? How they can make their farms, ranches much more resilient to drought, to the fluctuations in temperature and moisture? And, you know, there’s no, you can’t expect a farmer or rancher just to suddenly know all this. So the government needs to play a significant role in education.

Janet: Do you think that’s the biggest barrier to farmers adopting these practices? Is it that they just don’t know?

Gabe: Okay, that’s an excellent question, and I think the barrier is, number one, it’s fear, fear of the unknown. Realise, since World War II, we have been stuck in this production model, where it’s all about inputs and then all about yield and pounds, okay? So farmers aren’t gonna, they don’t feel comfortable stepping outside the box. Now, I cannot speak for the UK, but here in the United States, 90 plus per cent of farmers and ranchers have to borrow money every year in order to put the crop in the ground and stay in business. Well, the lending institutions are not going to borrow farmers and ranchers that money unless they take part in the current farm programme and follow those protocols so they can be paid these subsidies, okay? Well, those, the current farm programme, at least here in the States, is almost totally antagonistic to regenerative agriculture, because it dictates planting monocultures, it dictates, quote unquote, ‘best management practices’, which are almost a total joke, they are totally antagonistic to biodiversity and to a healthy ecosystem.

Janet: So, when you’re talking to farmers, and all these farmers that you’re consulting with, what’s the most persuasive argument that you’ve found really makes an impact when you’re trying to get them to pay attention to these ways of operating?

Gabe: Our consultants, we train them that you work within that farmer’s and rancher’s context, so it’s gonna vary a little bit according to each individual operation, but the number one approach we use by far is profitability, and we have the documentation to show that regenerative farms and ranches are much much more profitable, and they’re much lower stress and, let’s be honest, there’s a tremendous amount of stress right now on farmers and ranchers, most of them are strapped financially and, you know, pressures mount, and it’s not a good thing. So, the best way to combat stress is to be profitable.

Janet: Why is it more profitable? What is it that makes it more profitable?

Gabe: Uhm, a number of things. So I will use my own ranch as an example. When we bought this ranch in 1991, organic matter levels were from 1.7 to 1.9 per cent. Now, scientists tell me historically speaking where I’m at in the northern Great Plains, here, organic matter level should have been in the 7 to 8 per cent range, okay. So in other words, 75 per cent of the carbon that was once in the soil is now in the atmosphere due to previous management. Okay, well, farmers need to understand that it’s carbon that drives the system and their farm profitability is based upon that carbon flow, how much energy can they take out of the atmosphere and move into the soil to feed biology.

So today, after adopting these six principles and being at it a while, our organic matter levels are now from 5.3 to 7.9 per cent. Okay, I’m still degraded and I tell people this, you know, I’ve travelled extensively, I’m on hundreds of farms and ranches every year, I have never ever been on a single one, including my own, that’s not degraded. We’re all farming and ranching degraded resources, that’s why we cannot talk about being sustainable. That is a joke. Why do we want to sustain a degraded resource? We need to be regenerative and so, getting back to your original question, as my soil health improved, the biology improved. Think of what happened. I went from being able to infiltrate a half of an inch of rainfall per hour. Today, documented through scientific tests, we can infiltrate over 30 inches per hour. Now, where I’m at, North Dakota, we have never ever received 30 inches of rain in a year. Yeah, okay, so that means that every raindrop that falls on my ranch is going to infiltrate, and then due to the carbon levels in the soil, it’s going to be held there for when plants need it, okay, so that makes me very resilient to drought, that increases profitability, then carbon feeds biology. As I increase carbon levels in my soil, the biology increases and cycles the nutrients.

Now, here’s a little-known fact that a lot of people today, agronomists, would argue with, but we’ve done this, our firm Understanding Ag has done total nutrient extraction tests on hundreds of farms, and what we’ve found, we have yet to find a single farmer ranch that does not have adequate nutrients already in the soil, okay, so nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and not just by a little, there’s thousands of pounds of this in the soil. So you might ask, well then, why do farmers and ranchers need to fertilise? Well, the answer is, they don’t have the biology in the soil to cycle those nutrients, so as we adopt these principles, get more biology, more nutrients become available, that allows us to systematically, methodically cut back on the amount of inputs, that increases profitability and then, because you have better soil aggregation, better biology, more water, and water is critical, and I know in the UK often people have issues with too much water, but realise it’s not so much too much water as it is a lack of soil aggregation and a lack of the ability of that water to move throughout the soil profile. You know, biology in the soil lives in and on thin films of water, it’s a sub-aquatic ecosystem, so water in the soil is a good thing. But you can’t have it waterlogged or it becomes anaerobic. So what we find, as we adopt these principles and advance our soil health, we’re able to increase production too, also, so the increase in profitability comes about from a lowering of inputs and an increase in production. 

Janet: And you’ve also done, haven’t you, shortened the supply chain so you get more of your income at the farm gate alongside these farming practices? Can you say a bit more about what you’ve done there?

Gabe: Yeah, so on our own ranch, we grow a wide variety of different cash crops, corn and wheat and barley and oats and rye and vetch and peas, and many others, but we also, we raise grass-finished beef, grass-finished lamb, pastured pork, we do eggs, we have laying hens, we do broilers, we do some turkeys, we do a little bit of vegetable production, and we do honey, and then we market all those products direct to consumers from our ranch and we’re able to ship anywhere in the lower 48 contiguous United States and it more or less eliminates, so to speak, the middleman and goes direct to consumers. We add about 35 per cent net profit margin on top of what we make, you know, on the production side of it. So essentially what we’re doing, we’re keeping over 70 per cent in our pockets versus, you know, the average, and it’ll vary, from 8 to 11 per cent of farm sales, you know, actually go to the farmer. Well, we’re over 70 per cent.

Janet: You must come across lots of farmers that say, well, that’s all right for you, on your particular land, in your particular circumstances with your particular soil, but it won’t work for me because I’m in a different country, a different climate, a different soil type, different type of farm. How widely applicable are the methods you use? And we should probably, for those who haven’t actually had the joy of reading your book, we should probably say what these principles are as well actually. Let’s run through them quickly, and then say something about how widely applicable they are too.

Gabe: Okay, the six principles very quickly are, number one: context, and that was added since I wrote the book. We came to the realisation that, you know, nature always operates in context. You know, I tell people, there’s a reason bananas don’t grow in North Dakota, you know, we get winter up here, so we see way too many farmers or ranchers trying to operate out of their context, okay. You have to grow the species that survive in your area and thrive in your area in the climate and environment you’re in, okay. Principle number two is: least amount of mechanical chemical disturbance possible. Nature does not till the soil as copiously as we do. Yes, there’s earthworms and burrowing animals that till the soil, but we’re not turning the soil over with a plow, you know, nature just doesn’t operate that way. Nature, yes, plants emit chemicals, animals emit chemicals, but not the copious amounts of insecticides, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides we’re using in agriculture today. Those are all only needed because of our management, or lack thereof.

The next principle is armour on the soil. You should never ever see bare soil. Walk into a forest, walk into a native prairie ecosystem, it’s always covered, not only with living plants, but there’s that residue layer that protects the soil from wind erosion, water erosion, evaporation. The next principle is diversity. Where in nature do you find a monoculture? The answer is, you’re not going to find one unless mankind has, through mismanagement, dictated that, you know. But what do we do in agriculture, we plant monoculture fields, right, it’s just totally antagonistic to how a healthy ecosystem functions.

The fifth principle is: living root in the soil as long as possible throughout the year. Nature always tries to put living roots in the soil, so it can take that energy, that sunlight, and then through photosynthesis, convert it to all these carbon compounds that the plant uses – part of that for growth, the rest is pumped into the soil to feed biology. We need more of that. Look, what we’re doing in agriculture, we grow a cash crop and then the fields sit idle for long periods of time, that’s just not how nature functions.

And the final principle, and one of the most important, is animal and insect integration. Nature and ecosystems, natural ecosystems, do not function properly without animals and insects. You know, there are studies, that study came out a couple years ago, Germany lost 75 per cent of its biodiversity in a 25 year period, and we’re seeing that worldwide. If we don’t have insects, we’re not gonna have a healthy ecosystem. If we don’t have grazing animals out on the landscape, they play an important role because once a plant is grazed it sloughs where it exudates so it regrows, that cycles more carbon, and then that animal, the microbiome in the gut of that animal is closely related to the to the microbiome in the soil and it’s a transfer of biology and nutrients. You know, those animals, as they defecate and urinate, are putting nutrients back onto the landscape.

So, what we tell our clients is, your ability to be successful with regenerative agriculture is directly proportional to your understanding of, and adoption of these principles. Too many people adopt one or two principles and then they get frustrated, well, it doesn’t work for me. Well, no, it would work for you, if you understood them and applied them. And here’s the challenge I put forth to anybody: I will bet my ranch here in North Dakota against your farm or ranch anywhere in the world where there’s land-based production agriculture, that I can get these principles to work on your ranch. I’ve made that bet, I’ve stood in front of audiences in Australia and all over North America and made that statement, South Africa, and I have yet to have anybody take me up on it but I’d be happy for them to do so because I’m going to own their farmland. Well, these principles, if you look, think about these six principles, walk out on any farm or ranch, they’re applicable. Now, you’re going to use different crop species, you’re going to use different cover crop species, you may use different livestock species, but the principles are the same, and that’s how I’m 100 per cent confident that they’ll work.

And the other thing is, we’ve seen it over and over. I can, you know, pick up the phone and call into any country around the world and talk to people who are practicing regenerative agriculture.

Janet: Yeah, I’ve visited some, actually, here in the UK, and what you say, certainly on the farms I’ve visited, rings true. If there are farmers listening now and thinking, well, okay, I want to do this but, as you say, I’m fearful, there’s a risk to me of change, but I want to, I want to make a start, where should a farmer start if they want to begin adopting these principles? What’s the most important thing to do first?

Gabe: Yes, great question, and the most important thing by far is education. You need to educate yourself, and there’s a lot of good resources out there, our firm UnderstandingAg and then our educational arm Soil Health Academy, we have a wealth of resources on our websites, and then I would say, do your homework and find out who in your area is doing this, and go talk to them and attend, you know, workshops or field days where these are discussed. You know, there are a number of people who are doing an excellent job in the UK and in Ireland adopting these principles and farming and ranching regeneratively. 

Janet: Can we talk a bit more about practically what it looks like on your farm? So, if I were to visit your farm, if we were watching you on a screen now, if we actually look at your farm, what’s different about it compared to when you started?

Gabe: Yeah, a lot of people drive by my ranch and they don’t give it a second thought, except at certain times of the year, because I have cash crops growing just like my neighbours do, there’s livestock out grazing in the paddocks just like my neighbours. But when we harvest that crop, they will notice, gee, Gabe’s fields are still green, there’s growing plants there, gee, now he’s got the livestock out grazing those plants during the winter. Well, you know, our livestock are not in confinement, they’re out on the landscape all year, even during winter, and we get a lot of snow, you know, we’ll get six plus feet of snow during the winter, and obviously it melts down and, but the livestock are not confined, they’re out, and the difference is, I have living diverse plant communities on my fields, in my pastures, as long as possible throughout the year, and that’s cycling that carbon, it’s out of the atmosphere into the soil.

The other thing, if they stop and talk to me, I’m always happy to take them over to the neighbours’ fields, put a spade in the ground and look at the soil there, and then just cross the fence line into mine and look at the soil, same soil type, totally different, totally different, and I tell people, because I often hear that, oh, you don’t understand that my soil is too high in clay, my soil is this or that, and I ask them, but do you understand you can change that? Now, no, you can’t change the inherent properties, it’s either going to be sand, silt or clay, or some combination thereof, but just because you have clay soils, doesn’t mean it can’t be well aggregated, it doesn’t mean that, you know, it can’t be full of life and functioning properly, and that’s a direct reflection of them. So I tell people, I’m not going to feel sorry for anyone who says, oh, my soils aren’t like that. No, you just don’t understand, you know, you need to educate yourself, and if you do, you can make significant changes, and I often get asked, well, how long does it take? So here’s what we do with our clients.

First of all, every new client of ours, has to educate themselves. We have an online course, RegenAg 101. They have to review and understand that, because we’re not going to send a consultant out and then it’ll be like talking a foreign language to this producer, they have to understand that, and then we tell them, you have to dedicate at least one field for five years, and for five years we’re going to walk you through and help you adopt those six principles on that field.

Normally what happens by the end of year two or by the end of year three at the latest, they’ve got all their entire farm enrolled and moved down the regenerative path, because you can see the differences in the soils, and you’ll start to see the difference in profitability certainly by the end of year two. Now, the only caveat to that, of course, is if there was a weather extreme like hail, drought, flooding, something like that, yeah. 

Janet: So when we’re thinking about measuring, we’re thinking about a kind of England level, which is where I’m looking, if we want to measure the success of regenerative farming. We’ve talked about soil organic matter being one thing, we talked about profitability being another, are there other measures that we could use to say regenerative farming is really making a difference in being successful? How can we tell?

Gabe: One of the easiest ways is the aggregate stability test. You need to measure, see, a soil aggregate, you know, and all farmers, the soil aggregate is that little crumb, that chocolate cakelike structure in the soil, a soil aggregate will only last about four weeks and then new ones need to be rebuilt, and soil aggregates are sand, silt and clay particles held together with sticky substance put out by mycorrhizal fungi and biology. So we can measure soil aggregation and aggregate stability. How stable those aggregates are in water will directly tell us if you’re moving in a positive direction or not. We can also do what’s called a PLFA test, phospholipid fatty acid test, which tells us the amount of bacteria and protozoa and nematodes and fungi, and the balances thereof, because in a healthy ecosystem, you’re going to have a very good population of all of these. But your predator-prey relationship, in other words, the balance of bacteria to protozoa and nematodes, is going to be such that you have the prey that can eat the bacteria, and that’s what cycles your nutrients.

So, then the other things we, of course, measure are biodiversity: plant communities, insect communities, wildlife, birds etc. We do counts on them because wildlife, you know, whether we’re talking birds or insects, they’re going to show up where there is the home and habitat that they need, and it is amazing on these regenerative farms and ranches how quickly that happens. Then, the other thing, of course, we measure is farm profitability, because all of these ecosystem services have to take a back seat to the ability of a farmer or rancher to stay out there, make a living and support their family.

Janet: And often it’s presented as a choice between doing that and doing things which are good for the environment, but what I think is really interesting about your book and your approach is that you’re saying, no, it’s not a choice, you can do both.

Gabe: That’s exactly right. The beauty of this whole thing is that what’s good for farmers and ranchers pocketbooks is also good for society and good for the environment. You know, I testified just here, six weeks ago, in front of the U.S. House, and I went there to try and show them that agriculture is part of the solution, it’s not part of the problem. So often agriculture is vilified, oh, we’re releasing too much carbon in the atmosphere, we’re burning fossil fuels, and animals are are putting out methane and that’s destroying the environment, and I told them, look, in the current production model, yes, that’s the case, but in the regenerative model, that’s not the case, we’re actually a net carbon sink, animals out grazing on the landscape will sequester more carbon, we have proof of that, and not just a little bit, a lot, and we need more animals out on the landscape, not less, but they need to be properly managed. And so it benefits biodiversity, you know, our water is going to be cleaner because we lower the amount of synthetic nutrients that are applied, and we’re able to hold those nutrients on the landscape via living cover crops and living plants, so it cleans up the watershed, we’re, as I said, taking much more carbon out of the atmosphere. And then, a very very important one, perhaps one of the most important is, we now are doing nutrient testing of foods grown in in a regenerative model versus foods grown in the conventional model. The differences are absolutely mind-blowing.

We’re working with Dr. Stephan Van Vliet at Duke University Medical Center. Through the use of a mass spectrometer, he can measure over 2,500 different phytonutrient compounds. He is finding significant differences, you know, in the food grown, in regenerative versus the food grown conventionally. When you look at the human health crisis going on in this world today, you know, the increase in ADD, ADHD, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, autoimmune diseases, cancers, the list goes on, most of those, 95 plus per cent of those can be mitigated with a healthy gut microbiome, and a healthy gut microbiome is directly related to the food that we eat. And so all of these things, and this is what we’re such proponents of, let’s come together and work together as a society on 80 per cent of the things we can agree on. The other 20 per cent will work themselves out, but we all can agree that more carbon in the soil is a good thing, we all can agree that clean water is a good thing, we all can agree that farm profitability and the revitalisation of our communities is a good thing, we all can agree that food higher nutrient density is a good thing. So why can’t we work together on this?

Janet: Build on the common ground.

Gabe: Exactly.

Janet: Lots of people look to you for inspiration and learning and advice. Who do you look to for inspiration?

Gabe: Well, the first is God obviously. You know, I tell people he put me through what he did those 25 years ago because he knew I had a big mouth and I’d spread the word! And so I look for inspiration in nature, you know, I tell people, and I wrote in my book that during those four years of hail and drought, I would walk through our native pastures and observe how ecosystems function, so that inspires me, but what really inspires me is the stories, when I see a farm family which was struggling, and now they’ve been able to pay off their debt and, you know, their family is happy, and the children are actively involved in the farm or ranch, that inspires me, and that’s the reason I do what I do.

Janet: Lots of farmers who start adopting these sorts of practices say that when they first start their neighbours laugh at them over the fence and think they’re completely wacky. Did that happen to you? And if so, how did you hold your nerve in those early years?

Gabe: Oh, very much so and realise that, I did not grow up on a farmer ranch, I grew up in town, so everybody expected me to fail. Well, that was out of the question. I was not going to fail, it’s not in me, you know. I tell people I fail at things every year, but they’re just learning experiences, but I wasn’t going to fail as a farmer rancher and, you know, back then none of the neighbours would offer to help me out or anything because they just wanted to buy my land. They thought I’d go broke, they’d be able to buy my land. Well, I really leaned on my family and my faith, and that’s what got me through this. 

Now today, you know, back when I went through this, there was no internet, there wasn’t the communication we have today. I couldn’t have a Zoom meeting with a fellow regenerative agriculturalist in another state. Now today, it’s a real community, and one of the things we’re most proud of is that those of us involved in regenerative agriculture are willing to share with anybody. You know, so often in conventional agriculture, you want to keep what you’re doing a secret because you want to have a leg up on others. That’s not the way it is in regenerative agriculture, we understand that what’s good for us is good for our neighbours, good for our community, and let’s all work together and, you know, there’s plenty of people to sell food to, and that’s really what we’re doing is selling food and fiber and let’s work together for the common good.

Janet: And do you think there’s a mindset that you need to be a regenerative farmer. I’ve heard people talk about a shift in mindset. 

Gabe: Yes, definitely, there is, and the hardest thing for us to do, when we educate as to regenerative agriculture and these principles, is realise we’re changing, if you’re a farmer and rancher who has been farming and ranching a while, you’ve got these biases and you’ve got these beliefs, these beliefs are based on, not only your own practices and what’s happening, your own experiences, but also the experiences of your fathers and grandfathers and neighbours. Well, what you’re doing in regenerative agriculture is totally different, okay. I just told you earlier in this, that there’s plenty of nutrients in the soil, well, that’s certainly not what you’ve heard, it’s not what you’ve observed, it’s not what your agronomists tell you, it’s not what your neighbours tell you. But I can prove that, through simple soil tests I can prove that. So that’s what we do, we have to go turn their world totally upside down, and then the next thing, we have to teach people the power of observation. Okay, most farmers walk out in the field, they see a weed, they want to spray that weed, well, I want to know what weed, more correctly forb, is that, and then what’s that forb trying to tell us. For instance, I use dandelions a lot, dandelions tell me that there’s a lack of calcium cycling in that soil, and you need plants that will cycle calcium. You need to observe, you know, much more than is done in conventional agriculture.

Janet: And you’ve also talked about, I just read Nicole Masters’ book, and she quotes you as saying that you plan to, you plan to fail at something every year. Is that part, is that part of the mindset as well?

Gabe: Uhm, yeah, you know, people ask me, well, who did you learn from? Well, I learned a lot through trial and error, and I tell people, you know, my son and I are experts at failure because we want to fail at several things every year. How do I know if a certain cover crop species will work on my land or not? How do I know if a crop combination will work or not? And the thing is, you just make, you try these things on a small scale. If they work, then you increase the acreage of those, if they don’t work, we try things twice, and if it fails twice in a row then, okay, we move on to something else. But I’ve tried hundreds of different cover crop species, you know, I’ve tried different scenarios as far as grazing my livestock, you know, do the sheep go ahead of the cattle? Do they go behind? Do they go with them? You know, where do I move the laying hens? You know, we’re always experimenting, but that’s what makes it fun. You know, I tell people, you know, I used to wake up every morning trying to decide what I was going to kill that day, was it going to be a weed, a pest, fungal disease? I was going to kill something. Now I wake up every day, how do I get more life on my ranch, and it’s much more enjoyable, and much more profitable working with life as compared to death.

Janet: What’s next for you on your farm? What are your goals for the next 10 years, having achieved everything you’ve achieved so far?

Gabe: Yes, and on our own ranch, three years ago my wife and I turned the ranch over to our son and he’s 33 now, and he’s going to take this way beyond where I did. I don’t know exactly what he has planned, I just know, I have confidence and I’ll support him, and whatever he decides, my personal goal is just to do what I’m doing right here with you, spread the word of regenerative agriculture, and try and heal, not only our ecosystems, but heal society. Let’s come together for the good of it.

Janet: It’s really interesting hearing you talk about the social aspect of this, because some of the commentary on regenerative agriculture is critical, isn’t it, of not including that social aspect and not thinking about social justice, racial justice, where do you stand on that set of issues?

Gabe: Very good question, and the beauty of regenerative agriculture is, it knows none of those. You know, we work with anyone. I mean, we’re working with indigenous peoples, we’re working with people of colour, every faith, nationality,

creed. We’ll work with all of them because it knows no boundaries. And the other thing is, you know, with bringing profitability back into agriculture, think of, I don’t know how it is in the UK, but in the United States here, there’s large populations of immigrants that do the manual labour. Well, by improving the profitability in a farm or ranch, we can improve the wages paid, we can improve their living conditions, we can, you know, help them move forward as an individual and reach their potential and dreams, and that’s a good thing.

Janet: And I’ve got a question to finish with. Before I do, I should say thank you, because I, so the people have, Twitter, the farming community on Twitter, because I said I was going to be talking to you and asked people to suggest questions, so lots of the things I’ve been asking you have come from farmers in England who are keen to hear your answers to some of the things I’ve been asking, and the last one was from somebody who has wanted me to ask you, which aspects of your business bring you the most joy? Gabe: And I tell people, the thing I enjoy the most is, those who know me, I don’t sleep much, so I’m outside when the sun’s coming up, and I love, at that time, taking a walk across the native prairie with my dogs and then observing the livestock as they get up and start their day, and I listen to the birds and see the wildlife, and that really brings me joy.

Janet: I can imagine why, Gabe. It’s been absolutely brilliant to talk to you, thank you ever so much for your time and your insights. It’s been fantastic. I could happily ask you a hundred more questions but we’re out of time, so I just want to thank you very much for all that you’re doing and for coming on our podcast today.

Gabe: Well, thank you, it’s a pleasure being with you. Happy to visit with you anytime, Janet.

Janet: Thank you so much. Thank you for tuning in today to the Future Farming podcast. You can follow the podcast at all the normal places where you get your podcasts, and you can also follow us on our blog by following the QR Code. We’ll be recording the next episode soon and we’ll look forward to seeing you then. Bye!

Written by Joel Williams

When we begin to unpack the complex world of soil, of course there are many factors that contribute to the optimum functioning of a ‘healthy soil’ – be that chemical, physical or biological. That said, it is clear that soil biology specifically has played an instrumental role in catalysing the recent interest in soil health and with good reason – soil biological interactions are key in driving so many critical soil functions – be that nutrient cycling for plant uptake1, maintaining of soil aggregates and structure2, improving gas and water interactions2, protecting the plant from pests and disease3,4 and building organic matter5,6. Consequently, microbes are undoubtedly the unseen engine of soil fertility, and plant growth ultimately depends on a variety of functions performed by these diverse soil and root dwelling organisms.

Let’s be clear however, there are many knowledge gaps and much to learn, we still know so little – particularly about the ‘micro’ part of soil biology – but this microbiome represents a major untapped resource with extraordinary potential to help improve our production systems. Using this vast diversity of microbial allies, production systems of the future will deploy a combination of targeted inoculants coupled with specific strategies to manage this biome toward supplying nutrients, deterring crop pests and building soil fertility over time in a much more biologically driven and sustainable fashion than we do presently.

Some simple management strategies that can be implemented on farm to improve soil biological function include:

Maintaining a living root

• Keeping the soil covered with living plants ensures roots and root exudates are constantly feeding and supporting soil biota. Continuous cropping, green manures or use of off-season cover crops are ideal.

Organic amendments

• Composts or manures inoculate soils with beneficial biology as well as providing a medium of carbon and nutrients that supports ongoing soil functionality.

Biofertilisers

• Composts and manures provide a more diverse inoculant but there may be a time and place for specific cultured inoculants for a more targeted response. The use of rhizobia with legumes or mycorrhizal fungi with tree crops would be good examples of current success stories, but beyond these, the options are as vast as the microbiome itself. Of course many inoculants perform well under controlled conditions which doesn’t always translate well into field conditions. This is an area where improvements are needed.

Plant species diversity

• The use of cocktail cover crops, multispecies pastures and intercropping have all been demonstrated to enhance soil biological function in one way or another.

Minimising soil disturbance

• The use of no till, min till or strip till all help to minimise the physical disruption to the soil habitat.

Minimise excessive inputs

• Excessive use of fertilisers or pesticides can compromise biological function.

As important as soil biology is, it still has to function within the soil environment, equally a chemical and physical world. Consequently, we must still frame discussions on biology within this broader context, it is an interaction, after all. A soil chemistry test is a common tool that most farmers use to manage their chemical fertility so let’s consider a few important factors where chemistry and biology intersect. Soil chemistry is equally a complex topic and there is endless reading out there on this topic so rather than reinvent the wheel, I’ll just say a few points – perhaps a detailed discussion on soil chemistry is something that can be revisited in future.

It is common for standard soil analyses to only test for a handful of parameters – major nutrients and pH for example. However, a limitation or imbalance of any one of the essential nutrients can impact plant growth and development so it is prudent to ensure that both macro and micro minerals are all tested [at least somewhat routinely]. Don’t forget the lesser considered traces also – molybdenum, cobalt and nickel for example. These nutrients all have an important role in nitrogen metabolism and fixation. On that point, often overlooked is the fact that microbes in the soil need nutrients too – all the same macro and micro minerals. We focus so heavily on plant requirements but again using the example of Mo, Co and Ni – N fixing bacteria cannot fix atmospheric nitrogen without these important minerals and a limited supply to the bacteria can limit the overall potential of nitrogen fixation to the crop. 

Most soil analyses will typically measure the plant available fractions of tested elements; however, soils contain significant additional reserves of minerals which are not necessarily, plant available, but still present, nonetheless. This pool of nutrients is typically referred to as the total pool and often exceeds the plant available fractions by tenfold or more. These total nutrients are insoluble, often locked up and consequently unavailable to the plant7. However, soil microorganisms have a myriad of strategies and modes of action to unlock and solubilise these total nutrients by excreting specialist enzymes and acids that strip the minerals off the soil surfaces, releasing them for subsequent plant uptake8,9. Herein lies one of the key reasons why implementing strategies to improve soil biological function can help reduce dependency on fertiliser inputs – by liberating these total reserves.

Of course, there is an important discussion to be had regarding potential extraction and depletion of these reserves, but this is a problem for perhaps around 100-300 years or more from now. I’m not suggesting let’s just forget about this, but the more immediate problem right now is nutrient enrichment of ecosystems, not depletion – it is my opinion this should be more of a focus for the immediate future. Farmers who are shifting their focus to soil biology are succeeding in cutting fertiliser inputs and still maintaining productivity or profitability. Of course, strategies like this should be undertaken with some care and within the context of the inherent soil type, environmental setting and as part of an integrated approach that focusses on many different strategies; this is typically the best path forward. I’d never promote cutting inputs without additionally implementing alternative strategies to substitute or hedge the process – slow and steady wins this race.

There is a lot to be said on this front and outlining some of these strategies to reduce inputs as part of a systems approach will form the basis of a future article no doubt. 

References

1. Protists: Puppet Masters of the Rhizosphere Microbiome. (2018). doi.org/10.1016/j. tplants.2018.10.011.

2. Soil as an extended composite phenotype of the microbial metagenome. (2020). doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-020-67631-0

3. Organic management promotes natural pest control through altered plant resistance to insects. (2020). doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-0656-9

4. Managing and manipulating the rhizosphere microbiome for plant health: A systems approach. (2017). doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2017.04.004

5. Quantitative assessment of microbial necromass contribution to soil organic matter. (2019). doi. org/10.1111/gcb.14781

6. The importance of anabolism in microbial control over soil carbon storage. (2017). doi.org/10.1038/ nmicrobiol.2017.105

7. Opportunities for mobilizing recalcitrant phosphorus from agricultural soils: a review. (2018). doi. org/10.1007/s11104-017-3362-2

8. Phosphate solubilizing microbes: Sustainable approach for managing phosphorus deficiency in agricultural soils. (2013). doi.org/10.1186/2193- 1801-2-587

9. Phosphate-Solubilizing Microorganisms and Their Emerging Role in Sustainable Agriculture. (2019). doi.

Written by Chris Fellows

Farming is becoming as much about what we can’t see as what we can. We as farmers already know that. Many of the articles in this magazine cover what can’t be seen and the complexity of modern-day sustainable farming. Greenhouse gases in the air can’t be seen, our crops and tramlines can. Soil carbon under the ground can’t be seen, but soil on the road can. Soil microbiology can’t be seen but cover crops can. The carbon footprint of an avocado can’t be seen on its packaging, but our livestock can.

Farmers are becoming ever more berated for what can be seen. The public are being told that these visible elements are bad. Livestock are bad. The public don’t even seem to argue that much with this hypothesis, because if agriculture is bad then it takes the spotlight off their own carbon footprint as they board their flights to Ibiza.

“look at all that damage being done” they say to their kids, as they drive them the mile to school while picking up a Costa in a disposable cup on the way. The blame game is a distraction for them, one that is very effective. It also damaging, as it stops people from making changes in their own lives that would make a difference to the planet. The truth is we all need to make changes, not just say we are doing the right thing or carry on taking private jets and then just saying you have bought an offset.

We as farmers know livestock aren’t bad per se. CAFO’s in the states certainly aren’t the way livestock is going to be raised in a sustainable future, but livestock, in a rotation with crops, grass or other animals can be a very effective way to generate a closed loop farm that requires the minimum of inputs and creates the maximum of financial output. Read “Dirt to Soil” by Gabe Brown, if you want to understand closed loop farming better, he explains it far better than I could in a short paragraph. But what is clear, livestock are part of a closed loop farm, therefore the simple statement that a vegan lifestyle will save the planet is wrong in my eyes.

However, perception will only change if the public start to appreciate farming for what can’t be seen. As these are our silver bullets, the truth behind the myths that are propagated in the media and online. This is the battle of perception we face. I toyed with whether to use the word battle, but the more I think about it, the more I think we are at war. If you look at the massive money institutions behind processed food and lab grown meat, it’s a battle that we are doomed to lose unless some action is taken to educate consumers. 

We need to define our bullets and start to repeat them enmasse.

Henry Dimbleby’s National Food Strategy is our first bullet. He has said that processed food is the enemy of health. That ultra-processed food needs taxing, heavily. It causes long term health problems and just like cigarettes needs taxing at an appropriate level to the damage it is causing. The unhealthiest food on offer in a shop should not also be able to be the cheapest. The healthiest options should be the cheapest, preferably then priced by distance from where things are grown to the shop they are sold in. Meat substitutes are generally classed as ultra-processed food. Whereas there is not going to be a meat tax, which is good as sustainably grown meat is better for the diet of the general public (and their carbon footprint) than often the media portray.

Second bullet is being local. The UK has a very robust climate, day to day our weather is unpredictable, but year to year, we are in a better position than many countries to keep farming and even increase the list of products we grow as climate changes and the planet’s climate changes. In June this year, researchers created a “shortlist” of five nations most likely to survive the apocalypse. The UK was ranked 3rd and Ireland 5th. The number one criterion was how much land is being used for farming compared to the population. Our climate, regardless of the changes we will see in the next 50 years will remain very suitable for farming a lot of land.

Thus, we can and should grow more of our own food. Certainly, more than 60% of it. Looking at the national Food Strategy, we need to grow more fruit (and nuts) and reading about the agronomic benefits of including trees on your arable farms (detailed by Mike Abrams in this issue) then why not have more fruit trees. But this fruit ideally needs to be sold locally. While Waitrose is very open to the discussion around local food, I think the best way is direct to consumer. More farms need a little farm shop that the public can buy from. More of the public need to go onto farms and see how food is grown sustainably. More of the public need to understand this complexity in farming.

Third bullet. Education centres. We now have a few agricultural education centres around the UK. Agri-Epi, Agrimetrics, NIAB, Daylesford and FarmED to name just a few. We need to use these better to educate the public. Which won’t be easy as the public don’t think they need educating, that’s what the media and Facebook are for! An obvious target is to get more schools to visit these centres, but kids also love junk food. They won’t change their diets on their own. We need to get more adults through the doors. I don’t think that needs to be on the basis of learning about farming, we could just offer these spaces to businesses that need meeting and conference space. The people then that come in the door can be influenced. But we should also all give up some of our time to organise events at these places. Get 50 people toegther and talk about how we farm. Assuming they all have families then just the readership of this magazine could influence over 2 million people from just doing one event each. I know talking to a group seems like a massive ask, but its easier and less daunting than you think. You really do understand you chosen subject and the public love the idea of regenerative agriculture.

Fourth Bullet. We need to create Ag tech that makes farmers more profitable, not just the ag tech companies more profitable. I recently read that Agri-Epi feel the key driver for any agricultural business they support is GVA. I would have loved to have been able to tell them why I feel this is wrong. I guess I am, right now. GVA (Gross Value Added) is the measure of the value of goods and service a company produces. Yes, businesses need cashflow, yes they need to make money, but GVA is not king and should not be treated as such. The GVA of each business is what contributes to GDP on a national scale. At a governmental level GDP growth is good, so you could say their attitude to GVA and Ag Tech companies meets national needs. But GVA is not good in every situation. Just take the reusable cup mantra that coffee shops promote. Using paper cups would drive higher GDP, but its not seen as good to do something so disposable. GVA that serves no purpose is not good. And this unfortunately is the history of farming. GVA has risen a lot in agriculture, but farmers have no reaped the benefit of this.

Going right back to the 1862 when Lincoln created the United States a Department of Agriculture. (see boxed information from the USDA at the end of the article). A statement that change would drive farming forward, change the way American’s farm. It did, synthetic fertilisers, crop protection products all have enabled farmers to produce more. But I’d challenge whether any of it has made farming more financially sustainable or profitable. Farmers aren’t better off, but agricultural companies are more profitable. Some of the world giants in financial terms have been built based on these changes. Ag Tech needs to start being measured in whether it makes farmers more profitable, not just give farmers the ability to grow more. GVA is not what I would be measured success as – sustainability is.

Fifth bullet, talk about complexity. The public has a view of farmers. A stereotype that we have all seen on many a TV show. It involves a flat cap or chewing straw and a character you find hard to understand. Clarkson’s Farm is also guilty of this a bit. He is certainly demonstrating how hard farming can be, but he isn’t demonstrating the finesse that goes on behind the scenes. Why a complex rotation is good for both a farmer’s pocket only in the long term and not always in the short term. That bumper yields can be achieved at the expense of the soil health in the short term. But this isn’t the right approach. That farmers look for complex rotations that will maximise revenues over 20 years. I think Clarkson’s Farm was guilty of this mistake.

He was advised to cultivate land that hadn’t been cultivated for years as it would get him a better yield that first year. He talked about the yield penalty. While it created some fun, it really isn’t what we should promoting. Complexity is. That farming is incredibly complicated to do successfully (in fairness I think Mr Clarkson has highlighted this element rather well). When given the chance, make yourself sound like a rocket scientist.

Sixth bullet, food needs a documented carbon footprint. I’ve saved this to last. What currently can’t be seen is the carbon footprint of food the consumers buy. Unless this is fixed, I don’t think we can win this battle. The good news is that consumers want this information. They want to buy food grown carbon neutral. Carbon neutral beef exists, but we have the mantra that livestock is bad and we need to eat less meat forced on us. Having it on the packaging that a product is grown carbon neutral changes all that. Consumers can buy what they want and the added element is that they will pay more for carbon neutrally grown food. However, the bad news is that the supermarkets have zero interest in doing this.

The cynic in me would say this is because they know the highest polluting foods have the most profit margin in them, but I am a cynic. Either way, I think it will require government intervention to do this, but doing it would change the face of food, eating and as that moves back, how we are rewarded for farming. The other problem is that the mills and processors don’t seem to care either. At the moment, carbon neutral wheat is dumped in the same pile as all other wheats. Despite it having more value, the mills don’t even care or ask farmers what their carbon footprint is or if they are carbon neutral. Once consumers require answers (and thus get an education on the food they buy) these questions will have to be asked downstream and the cream of UK farming will get paid better for what they grow. But you can tell this story.

You will note that you the reader can only help with a few of these bullets. When you are next asked about your farm, please talk more about what can’t be seen than one can. This complexity will help educate whoever you are speaking to. It’s a good habit for us all to get into. We can all be ambassadors for complexity.