kingj3 said:
Thanks for your insight and comments. Have you cross checked Salatin's claims that his yield is comparable or better (depends on crop / species and i don't recall all the specifics) than conventional, chemical ag? What about Will Harris' claims - have you looked at those?
Are they just lying? Have you tested it and seen it or just repeating what your industry says? I'm not trying to be rude, just honestly asking.
I am a graduate of Ray Archuletta's course in North Carolina while an agronomist with USDA NRCS, and was even asked to join his cadre (not a promotion and I didn't want to move that late in my career after just losing a wife). I am a full on believer in the
principles of regenerative ag, but having worked far and wide on an enormous variety of crops and climates I can tell you the
practice doesn't fly everywhere as much as it's being pushed everywhere. It's a lot easier where it rains on a predictable regularity or you don't need to harvest a crop each year. There are most certainly things many farmers can do to improve their overall soil health and sustainability, and a vast majority of them realize this. However, in a time when a no-till planter cost a half million dollars and a sprayer is right along with it, many are forced to do the best they can with what they can maintain in the here and now. The days of massive dust storms like during the 20s and 50s are long gone thanks to some better farming practices (don't bother wasting your time on "the big dust storm last year", because the frequency is no where near what it used to be).
As a side note, the number of evil chemicals farmers use in reality is likely a tiny fraction of what is in most consumer's heads, and glyphosate does not cause cancer.
