I am challenging farmers to think differently about how their farm systems are set up, especially in terms of their reliance on concentrates and fertiliser inputs. There is an alternative approach to the current convention.
Stacking enterprises not only adds an extra stream of revenue but in most cases can reduce or eliminate certain expenses.
I would challenge any farmer that desires to improve their farm to think about the “why” behind the regenerative agriculture approach. What is the prize?
There is no time like the present when it comes to educating the public about agriculture and the role it plays in our lives. It cannot be overstated how crucial it is for more people to understand agriculture and not be influenced by common misconceptions.
Trace and Save’s sustainability measures ensure the consumer that the box of milk they buy is sourced from a farm that treats animals and the environment well.
The SWAN system is composed of soil, water, atmosphere and nutrient components. The best way to show how these integrated and interrelated measures reflect the journey of improving agricultural sustainability is to show a case study of a farm which has become more sustainable over the past five years.
What I want to discuss is the difference between putting ideas into practice in a manner that just ticks the box and putting ideas into practice in a manner that brings about tangible results.
Approaching agriculture in new ways requires new perspectives on how to view things. One of the main differences between conventional and sustainable agriculture is the relative reliance on external inputs.
The problem with change is that it is often very challenging. The usual, common and standard way of doing things is comfortable and known, but it very seldom brings about progress.
An upside down way of thinking, as with regenerative agriculture, is to start with the soil. Read this blog to find out more about this upside down thinking.