A huge pile of Woo.

[marplots]

Actually it is confirmation, (a tiny bit). See it is showing that the conventional no till corn following corn lowers yield. But following a different crop the yield reduction is smaller. But what Gabe and others have found was that following a multi-species cover crop it actually increased. So they grow off season multi species covers. When you do this it not only increases yields, it improves the soil fertility characteristics. (they are related) Since the cover crop is in a different growing season than corn, it is possible to get the benefits of crop rotation and still grow corn every year.

Congrats. That's the first time you've explained this where it makes sense to me. Well done.

Now, all you need to do is link the head-to-head comparison experiment in a clear, scientific study format and we can all go home for lunch.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Congrats. That's the first time you've explained this where it makes sense to me. Well done.

Now, all you need to do is link the head-to-head comparison experiment in a clear, scientific study format and we can all go home for lunch.

I'll look and see if I can find a case study already done. David Brandt has been doing this for long enough he may have one.

ETA: Here is a case study just started. Not corn only. This case study is on corn and soy. It is a first year transition with no animals as well, so he hasn't eliminated inputs, just lowered them.
Case Study ~ Transition to Cover Crop for a Beginning Farmer
Russell Hedrick, Owner, JRH Grain Farms LLC, Hickory, North Carolina

 

[SezMe]

As far as I can tell, RBF, you believe this approach to agriculture is remarkably and demonstrably better than traditional (for lack of a better word) farming. For the sake of this discussion, let's take that to be factually true. In that case, why are individuals and Big Ag not switching to this new "paradigm" even as we speak? And I don't mean just a few you can cite here and there. I mean a wholesale change throughout the nation that would be headline news kind of thing.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

As far as I can tell, RBF, you believe this approach to agriculture is remarkably and demonstrably better than traditional (for lack of a better word) farming. For the sake of this discussion, let's take that to be factually true. In that case, why are individuals and Big Ag not switching to this new "paradigm" even as we speak? And I don't mean just a few you can cite here and there. I mean a wholesale change throughout the nation that would be headline news kind of thing.

You have to know about it to switch, hence the active education programs all over the place. The OP being a tape of just 1 of many, possibly hundreds. Here is another education film put out by the USDA NRCS East National Technology Support Center from a while back. Ray Archuleta is working his buns off for the USDA in trying to educate this and show how to transition from a conventional no till system. Of course Gabe's results are more advanced because he has integrated livestock and been doing it longer, but one has to start somewhere, and due to zoning and infrastructure issues, livestock is not feasible everywhere. [1]

The idea is to peak farmers interest with films like that, then when they can find a local educational seminar, they can learn more.

 

[Sideroxylon]

To pique interest.

 

[marplots]

To pique interest.

"Pique" meaning to stimulate, from the French, "to prick or sting."

 

[Red Baron Farms]

"Pique" meaning to stimulate, from the French, "to prick or sting."

French always was my weak spot.

 

[ThunderChunky]

I'm interested in a proper accounting of inputs and outputs. Organic farmers notoriously use inputs such as manure and compost that were originally produced using non-organic systems and then they pretend they are not dependent on those systems. If you are producing all your own manure you need to account for all the land used to keep those animals and all the food used to feed those animals.

 

[marplots]

I'm interested in a proper accounting of inputs and outputs. Organic farmers notoriously use inputs such as manure and compost that were originally produced using non-organic systems and then they pretend they are not dependent on those systems. If you are producing all your own manure you need to account for all the land used to keep those animals and all the food used to feed those animals.

It gets pretty complicated, pretty quick. For example, in many (most?) no-till systems, they use herbicides to knock down weed growth on the field before planting - something it takes a lot of other effort to completely avoid. And if you cows grazing your between seasons cover crop (reducing herbicide use), do you count that manure, or those cows, since they need to eat far more than just what came from that plot?

Then you have things like chickens for pest control, but who also give you eggs, but have to be supported at least part of the year by other inputs.

The "web" aspect makes it difficult to describe things in discrete, clear terms. So there's a lot of room to maneuver for those who support the methods and for their detractors. I gave up trying to work out the "ins and outs" in any meaningful sense.

I think this lack of scientific rigor (or even the possibility of getting it) is why the ideas haven't caught on as well as they might. If I farm with pesticides and fertilizers, I have a level of control and clarity the more complex method lacks. I understand why I am adding nitrogen and what the results - measurable results - are supposed to be. I can easily calculate profit and loss, expenses and amortization.

It's much more of a mathematical model than trying to play Junior Gaia. And who can blame a farmer for distrusting a method he doesn't understand, when the results are not so spectacular that it induces a pressure to change? Doing what you've always done to get the results you've always gotten isn't such a bad deal in the end. And if you're still making ends meet the way daddy did, more's the better.

 

[ThunderChunky]

It gets pretty complicated, pretty quick. For example, in many (most?) no-till systems, they use herbicides to knock down weed growth on the field before planting - something it takes a lot of other effort to completely avoid. And if you cows grazing your between seasons cover crop (reducing herbicide use), do you count that manure, or those cows, since they need to eat far more than just what came from that plot?

Then you have things like chickens for pest control, but who also give you eggs, but have to be supported at least part of the year by other inputs.

The "web" aspect makes it difficult to describe things in discrete, clear terms. So there's a lot of room to maneuver for those who support the methods and for their detractors. I gave up trying to work out the "ins and outs" in any meaningful sense.

I think this lack of scientific rigor (or even the possibility of getting it) is why the ideas haven't caught on as well as they might. If I farm with pesticides and fertilizers, I have a level of control and clarity the more complex method lacks. I understand why I am adding nitrogen and what the results - measurable results - are supposed to be. I can easily calculate profit and loss, expenses and amortization.

It's much more of a mathematical model than trying to play Junior Gaia. And who can blame a farmer for distrusting a method he doesn't understand, when the results are not so spectacular that it induces a pressure to change? Doing what you've always done to get the results you've always gotten isn't such a bad deal in the end. And if you're still making ends meet the way daddy did, more's the better.

I wouldn't count grazing cows for the manure they make, but I would count any off farm produced food they they have to be fed and all the land they have to occupy. It seems like Gabe Brown claimed the cows were not adding any extra phosphorous to his farm, but if they are eating extraneously produced food, they certainly are contributing P (along with N, K, and other nutrients).

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I wouldn't count grazing cows for the manure they make, but I would count any off farm produced food they they have to be fed and all the land they have to occupy. It seems like Gabe Brown claimed the cows were not adding any extra phosphorous to his farm, but if they are eating extraneously produced food, they certainly are contributing P (along with N, K, and other nutrients).

They are grass fed and grass finished cows. No outside inputs. The chickens do eat some grain, but Gabe grows his own grain. I suppose you could claim the chicks are an "outside input" as he buys his day old chicks. The pork he also uses some grain, again grain grown himself. Farrowed on farm too. Some land is native prairie. That land is used only for grazing. Some is planted permanent pasture. That gets only grazed as well, but was tilled in the past. Some is the multi purpose land, that grows crops and covers. It gets grazed and grows various "cash crops" as well. The farm itself has no "outside fertility inputs", but by your definition, there are pastures "outside" of the crop growing areas, but still "on farm". I suppose in a crisis Gabe could potentially be forced to buy hay. But he doesn't as of now, because the farm has enough "forgiveness" in it due to soil health. There are limits though. A major drought like what California had would certainly affect even his farm, as he has no irrigation. So you could potentially devise a scenario where inputs are required, (hay during a drought) even though he doesn't use inputs now.

The P comes from biological activity in the soil. Some scavenged from deep in the soil, and some dissolved from the minerals in substrate by mycorrhizal fungi. There is a whole completely different way plants get their NPK. It is from biological activity instead of outside inputs. That why the Haney test. That's why the CEO of Ward labs came out and did tissue samples. It is a whole different system of obtaining nutrients for the plants, and they can do well even when a standard soil test claims the nutrients are low. Dr. Elaine Ingham has done a lot of work both researching and educating farmers about how that happens.