Just found the above chart backing up what I have been saying for years.
Global warming is a wholly natural event, if humanity disappeared tonight, global warming would still happen.
Your specific claims about "regenerative farming" aren't backed up though and you're well aware of this.
Yet the trend in advanced economies is rewilding. Berlin is now famous for its wild boar problem for instance.
Before the motorised tractor a third of all cultivated land was for the animals needed to work the other two thirds.
Mechanisation of food production has reduced the threat of seasonal famine yet the Green agenda would prefer that developing country stay wed to the famine prone subsistence practices that actually destroy biodiversity.
There is this Green belief that we got to our previleged long life status via good old mom and pop horse drawn tillage.
The likes of yourself see only food security as a negative.
There’s heaps of new data available. Go checked it out yourself. I’m not gonna bother posting it here for you.
I think it's reasonable for you to link to the studies if you're claiming there's been proof of Savory's claims since you last pushed bad science... I've done a quick search and there doesn't appear to be any change. The same issue exist of exaggerated carbon sequestration etc.
Rewilding isnt anything new. It’s conservation & reductionist management. I don’t see food security as a negative dunno where you got that from. But that success has come at a price to us, our health, the environment etc
And the damage we have done has the planet in real real trouble and our grandkids & there grandkids are gonna be inheriting serious trouble. Unless we change how we manage our resources now.
Im not gonna bother my time doing it for you because it would be a waste of it.
I'm concluding there continue to be no peer review studies that validate the claims you repeated make so.
you can do whatever you like my friend but I’m not gonna waste my time. Anybody with half a brain knows regenerative agriculture is the way forward.
It doesn't support your specific claims so is not a very good argument.
You have parroted very specific claims about regenerative agriculture without ever supporting them with a shred of evidence.
Your position unfortunately discedits the potential that regenerative agriculture does offer.
Everything iv said is backed up, Not my fault yee dont read it and can’t grasp the concept. as for yer solutions 😂😂😂😂
No it hasn't. You haven't provided any supporting evidence - not a single tiny bit.
Your good at flowery rhetoric but not much else.
not my problem you didn’t read the Teagasc paper or the Royal Society’s paper.
That doesn't reference any of Savory/your claims so its a massive fail. Its a general treaty on soil carbon. It doesn't support the massive claims made by Savory about how much his specific system can sequester.
Big fail.
I don't get this line of thinking. There's many things we should do before we have to go and reverse centuries of agriculture advances to try alleviate the issues at hand. Not saying for one second that agriculture shouldn't make changes, but it is small fry with a huge cost to populations if it goes awry.
We are heavily dependent on tillage farming to feed ourselves. Savory says absolutely nothing about his system as applied to tillage. What he advocates is converting everything to grazing with at best a 1/10th a level of productivity per area under agriculture - meaning we would need at least 10x the area of land to feed ourselves - even if it where a feasible strategy to pursue since most people could not and would not live on a diet of pure meat and diary.
Its pure fantasy science. Regenerative agriculture has a roll to play in restoring some degraded grazing land - but it cannot solve the problems of global warming and anyone who claims it can is lying.
All I’ll say to this is that, surely it’s a bigger risk not to change. We really don’t have the time.
What risk is there to population? The US estimates they barely have enough top soil for another 50 harvests. We’re on the road to extinction already.
And regenerative agriculture depending on the management, is actually producing more food per acre than conventional. Source for that is White Oak Pastures in the USA.
Source is anecdotal - so not worth ****.
Once again, you've made an explicit claim that hasn't been scientifically verified. Savory and Co would absolutely be going through the peer review process on it if it was resulting in a provable increase in crop yield. Instead we get numerous claims that have no proof. When challenged on all of this, your retort is we should do it regardless.
Gonna use the United States as an example to answer this.
They till, plant, fertilise & spray over 100 million acres there to grow corn & grain to feed cattle in feedlots. Now you don’t need to be a genius to no the negative results of that system. Savory makes the case that maybe we ought to not do that anymore, maybe Cows should be raised on the land instead of feedlot’s….
Hmmm we Might save a couple billion litres of diesel, chemical sprays, chemical fert etc wouldnt that be a big win for everyone.
I see you have absolutely no concept of what regenerative agriculture is. So go learn about it & then we might find some common ground.
It's not scientifically provable? That's been one of the things I've learned from the studies of Savory's claims. Benefits are grossly exaggerated and that's why you can never provide peer reviewed studies that backup your claims.
i don’t really give a **** about peer review, nothing was peer reviewed before the 1600s
Yet look how much we advanced.
We've also had the scientific method since then, Savory doesn't follow that though... Peer review does though.
We advanced much faster when the system of scientific papers came in and fellow scientists were able to peer review each others work. This is the very definition of the scientific method and it really kicked off after the enlightenment, ie after 1600.
So what you personally give a **** about isn't very important here.
Evidence is not required in religion.
I really don’t care, science was practiced long long before peer review. today We have the most knowledge in human history yet everything we manage is getting worse. Socially, environmentally & economically. So somethings wrong.
No it isn't, most things in human society are getting better. There are big problems with society but by every social metric possible we are living in the best of times.
Science is responsible for most of that, and real science (not the Savory kind of magical thinking) has the potential to solve all the remaining man made problems if we let it.
So ultimately, you don't care if something is scientifically provable… Which your claims aren't. Basically you want to believe what you'd like to believe.
That's 'cause there are more and more people who want more and more stuff thanks to more and more conditioning on more and more communication channels.
We'd also produce a lot less animal proteins. If the USA could produce as much of their hormone/antibiotic ridden beef from pasture, they'd be doing it.
I think you're targeting the wrong sector is all. Changing to regenerative ag. may prolong soils, but you produce less. There's a trade off. Min till would be much better practiced over there. Cover cropping too. To be fair, the mostly chop their straw for organic matter back into the ground.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f6ec3b6ae14cc6cd4a0e3a3374e0ef7b.svg)
