Page 1 on 4

Better than conservation, regenerative agriculture

published: 22/04/19, 10:21
by izentrop
Regenerative Agriculture - Living and Always Green Agriculture
Regenerative agriculture is an innovative agricultural system that increases biodiversity and enriches the earth with life and humus. By improving fertility and productivity, it stores carbon in soils and vegetation (plants, hedges, trees, etc.) while reversing the current trends in atmospheric accumulation of CO2 and global warming. At the same time, this agronomic approach offers good yields and gives crops excellent resilience to diseases, pests and climatic hazards.
"The adventure began in 1954 on Manfred Wenz's farm" Did often spoke about it. ;)

A recent document by Ulrich Schreier explains a lot: ... ageurs.pdf

It is a new paradigm where science has its place and where "profit" must be replaced by "resilience".

Re: Better than conservation, regenerative agriculture

published: 22/04/19, 11:07
by Did67
It's all the same a bit "climbing" in the appellations!

As soon as we practice a system that respects living things, it "regenerates" (compared to a degraded, conventional system ...).

Let us recognize, however, that "conservation agriculture" was a bit modest, as a display, because if we start from conventional agriculture, it is much better than conserving. The term, in reality, must be understood in relation to the problems of soil erosion and mudslides, which was one of the veins of inspiration, more than the "green" side, biodiversity, etc ... There, indeed, we keep our soil ...

Re: Better than conservation, regenerative agriculture

published: 22/04/19, 14:41
by izentrop
It goes beyond simple conservation
... this agronomic approach seeks the autonomy and the sustainability of the farms and finds its place in all the agricultural sectors: polyculture-breeding, large crops, market gardening, arboriculture, viticulture and other specialized crops, as well in organic and biodynamic as conventional where, by helping to reduce the doses of chemical fertilizers and the use of herbicides and pesticides, it can, in the long term, be used as a means of freeing oneself completely.
Phenoculture can be included in the package : Wink:

We pass through the Wenz method of “soil regeneration”, which is suitable for all types of agriculture. ... 01-abc.pdf
Friedrich Wenz aims to promote the path of "liquid carbon"
(formation then digestion of root exudates) to accelerate
soil humification processes, thanks in particular to sowing
plant cover. It's the best way for him to value
the 10 kW of solar energy per ha per hour that a soil receives
in summer to “regenerate” the soil…
… As much as a cover that produces
6 t of MS represents, according to Friedrich
Wenz, 30 t of fresh material,
what constitutes a potential for
20 t of sap per ha. This sap is
made up of 8 to 10% sugar,
or a significant amount
1,5 to 2,5 t of sugar / ha, molecules
humus generators and source
of life energy from the soil.
"Liquid carbon" would be the best way to store carbon in soils ... mement.pdf

Re: Better than conservation, regenerative agriculture

published: 22/04/19, 15:35
by Did67
Text is anything!

I do not know who tells these stupidities? Son Wenz or the one who wrote the article ???

Of course, 30 t of fresh material is not 20 t of "sap". By definition of a sap, it is almost only water !!! Most of which only passes through the plant before evaporating by transpiration from the plant.

It will remain to be confirmed how soluble sugars - by definition, in the sap, there are soluble sugars - form "humus". Even if the humification remains a mystery, it revolves around the transformations of the fibers. And by definition of a fiber, there is none in the sap ...

I would rather look for that in the quantities of biomass, partly fibrous, which remain on site and are buried by organisms.

The Wenz system works. I saw it (I only met the son, Friedrich; but met the father for a long time, Manfred). The explanations, whether of the son or of the one who wrote the article, seem pretty smoky!

Re: Better than conservation, regenerative agriculture

published: 22/04/19, 19:50
by izentrop
I am not a specialist, I only express how I understand what is written.
Did67 wrote:Of course, 30 t of fresh material is not 20 t of "sap". By definition of a sap, it is almost only water !!! Most of which only passes through the plant before evaporating by transpiration from the plant.
It seems to me that we are talking about elaborate sap, part of which is released by root exudates. It matches what was said Claire Chenu
The goal is to inject this
fuel in the ground thanks to
root exudates from canopy
or cultures. It is based on
this on the work of Christine Jones, Australian agronomist who defines this process
as the "carbon path
liquid ”. "Carbon under
form of sugar produced by plant roots is digested much faster by soil life
that the carbon in
residues and in straw.
Document explaining Christine Jones' research results ... mement.pdf
It compares 2 neighboring meadows
soil, slope, precipitation and agricultural production are
the same. So is the carbon level of the soil at the start.
LHS: soil profile over 0-50 cm of a plot driven in
to improve its photosynthetic capacity (grazing
turning point, ”pasture cropping” {cultivation of a cereal in a
dormant pasture}, compost tea - see photos at the end).
RHS: soil profile over 0-50 cm from the neighboring plot
(fence at 10 meters), conducted so
conventional with classic grazing and a long
history of phosphate fertilization.
The availability of minerals is more determined by the fluxes of
carbon from plants only from the carbon stock in the soil. The
"key" to mineral management lies in good cover management
vegetable. However, if the plant-soil sequestration route works, it is possible to
feed more people, with less land.
The additional stored carbon, especially at depth, is a long-chain, non-labile, very stable carbon.


Re: Better than conservation, regenerative agriculture

published: 23/04/19, 09:37
by izentrop
Ulrich Schreier talks a lot about Biodynamics and Rudolph Steiner in his writings, no scientific reference and disseminated on a commercial site, in the end, seriously refrain. : Mrgreen:

Re: Better than conservation, regenerative agriculture

published: 23/04/19, 15:00
by Did67
I have to do research from the original document ... I have the impression that there is a bit of shambles in the translations.

The "sap" that had confused me must not be the "sap", but "exudates" (roots) ... There, although high, the numbers would make sense.

The idea according to which it would be more the process of storage, thus "the life", would be at the base of the increases of the rates in various elements is far from being far-fetched.

The "old C" (that of humic substances) by mineralizing very little, feeds only little the life of the soil. Consequently, the mechanisms likely to mobilize mineral elements, in particular via the action of mycorrhizae, are hardly stimulated. Unlike what happens with fresh organic matter ...

We always come back to the same thing.

I hope that in the original document, there are elements on "compost juice": how much? Because it is obvious that this "percolate" of compost is a source of mineral elements (since the compost is an organic matter partly mineralized) ... Not to take into account "would add" the dice a little.

Re: Better than conservation, regenerative agriculture

published: 23/04/19, 23:15
by VetusLignum
This site uses the expression "regenerative agriculture", but behind it, it's mainly biodynamics.
So biodynamics is a lot of magic potions, and quite specious explanations. For me, it's a bit of another time. I am not saying that it does not work, I am saying above all that it needs to be better studied scientifically.

The term "regenerative agriculture" was, in my opinion, first used by Gabe Brown.

Listen to the video, it's really worth it.

I mainly see "regenerative agriculture" as a more ambitious and positive version of conservation agriculture.

Re: Better than conservation, regenerative agriculture

published: 24/04/19, 08:21
by izentrop
VetusLignum wrote:Listen to the video, it's really worth it.
Not even a French subtitle, it would be nice to make a summary for non-English speakers : Wink:

Re: Better than conservation, regenerative agriculture

published: 31/05/19, 15:44
by VetusLignum
izentrop wrote:
VetusLignum wrote:Listen to the video, it's really worth it.
Not even a French subtitle, it would be nice to make a summary for non-English speakers : Wink:

Gabe Brown is an American farmer based in North Dakota, a cold region. He was a follower of conventional agriculture, with tillage, fertilizers, phytos.
In 1991, he realized that his organic matter rate was below 2%, when he should have been around 7%.
In 1994, a friend of his who had gone to no-till advised him to do so too. He advised her to sell all of her equipment, so as not to be tempted to go back. And so, since 1994, it has been 100% plowing-free. That year, he also started to put peas, in order to take advantage of the symbiotic fixation of nitrogen.
In 1995, he lost all of his crops due to hail.
Afterwards, he put a mixture of triticale and hairy vetch during the winter.
In 1996, he tried corn, but again lost everything because of the hail.
Financially, it became difficult.
In 1997, there was a drought, and in 1998, more hail.
Afterwards, he put a mixture of cornilla and sorghum to feed his cattle. In fact, he sent his cattle to graze their cover crops in the fields.
From there, after 4 years without crops, he found that the quality of his soil was improving.
He considers that, to succeed in agriculture, you have to follow nature: no mechanical working of the soil, soil always covered (by plants), recycling of minerals by biology.
Root exudates nourish microbes, and contribute (after being transformed into carbonic acid) to degrade the parent rock.
For him, the best combination is: no-tillage, diversity of cultivated plants, integration of livestock (to graze the fields, at least in winter), almost no synthetics (herbicide occasionally, but no pesticides or fungicides , or even fertilizer). The important thing is to see its exploitation as an ecosystem.
Its only inputs are seeds and a few minerals for livestock.
So it's the soil carbon so the most important thing, since that's what gives the nutrients to the plants, and it's what allows the soil to infiltrate and conserve water.
Once water has been removed from a plant, 97% of the material consists of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen; and all of that is available in the air, and free.
Nutrients are present in the soil, and it's the biology of the soil (nourished by carbon) that makes them available to plants.
In its region, the cold makes it possible to destroy cover crops. Otherwise, you must choose species that can be destroyed with a roller.
Tillage destroys the soil structure, reduces water infiltration, organic matter, and promotes garbage. It must be planted in the residues (of the cover crop) with a suitable seed drill.
synthetic fertilizers should not be stopped until the soil has become alive. By ceasing fertilizers, mycorrhizae develop, and the soil is structured into aggregates.
Most improved varieties cannot get mycorrhizer. It is therefore important to make sure that what you plant can get mycorrhizer, and to save its seeds.
He inoculates his garden with mycorrhizal mushrooms from soil from wild meadows (commercial inoculants do not contain the best species).
A live root all year round (and therefore a cover crop during the winter) helps keep them active. And of course, avoid tillage, phytos, and synthetic fertilizers.
In 2005, its F / B ratio (fungi / bacteria) was 67%, while that of the neighbor was 10%. An ideal ratio would be 100% (1/1).
Leaving residue on the soil helps regulate the soil temperature. 21 degrees is the ideal temperature; beyond, the water evaporates instead of being used for plants. There are more earthworms. With living soil you can extend the growing season
Applying a herbicide does less harm to the soil than mechanical work. But he avoids glyphosate because it kills too many things (however, he doesn't list the herbicides he uses). He considers himself very close to being organic.
Regarding cover crops, it is preferable to multiply the species; this increases resilience to climate risks. Plants are more in symbiosis than in competition. It is important that there are always plants growing, in order to collect a maximum of solar energy.
Each species in the cover crop has a purpose.
Some attract beneficial insects, which fight against pests (therefore, no need for pesticides, especially since these kill useful insects).
Daikon radishes can pierce the compacted layer of soil, and thus improve water infiltration.
Cover crop residues prevent garbage from growing.