Some New Zealand scientists are campaigning to discredit regenerative and organic farming systems and this must be combated, writes Allan Richardson.
Comments on regenerative farming and organic farming can be called highly biased to say the least.
The focus of science has changed so that the commercialization of science encourages research to prove the benefits of a company’s product for commercial gain, rather than solving industry-good challenges.
There are certainly conflicts of interest when scientists are brought in to promote a company product or question the value of another product.
Why is science policy treated differently from corporate boards or even school boards where a person has to renounce a discussion in which they have a conflict of interest?
Accusations of cherry picking reports are also a bit rich when we hear that there is no research showing that organic or regenerative farming (RA) is better than conventional farming.
Farmers can simply search the Rodale Institute in the United States, a 40-year trial comparing organic and conventional farming.
It turned out that biologically comparable yields after a conversion period, 45% less energy consumption and 40% less CO2 emissions and more profit.
You only have to look back in history to see that science is not black and white and that personal agendas and funding can also cloud the story.
Ancel Keys was an American scientist who developed the dietary heart hypothesis in the early 1960s that a diet high in saturated fat caused heart disease.
He analyzed data from 22 countries, but only used the data from eight countries that proved his hypothesis. He then did a four-and-a-half-year trial in a psychiatric hospital to prove the hypothesis.
When the results showed that the high-saturated-fat group had 27% fewer heart attacks, he buried the results.
This science was adopted worldwide and contributed to poor health outcomes for millions of people until it was finally withdrawn in 2013.
The attacks on RA and organic conveniently ignore the most important component of our soil, the biological aspects.
Our soil is the most complex ecosystem on Earth; there are billions of living organisms and millions of species in just one teaspoon of soil.
We are just beginning to understand some of the complex relationships that exist in the soil and there is a touch of arrogance from some scientists who make sweeping statements without understanding or acknowledging the key biological properties of the soil biome.
The story is always about the chemical inputs, never about the biological relationships. When we buy organic products, such as seaweed-based products, it’s not so much the percentage of each chemical element they contain, but how they stimulate and nourish the biology in the soil that matters.
I understand that the case for organic products is a red flag for many farmers. It is usually rated by the worst farmer in the district compared to the best examples of conventional farming.
Organic produce may never be the largest agricultural system in New Zealand, but the industry continues to grow.
The value of organic goods and services in New Zealand was $720 million in 2020 and has grown 20% over the past three years. Globally, the organic food market reached $221 billion in 2021 and grew at 9.7% per year. We have multinationals like Patagonia and Danone that want their farmers to switch to regenerative farming. There is a huge worldwide demand for RA and organic food, which New Zealand can meet very well.
But I hear the chorus that the world will starve if we all go organic. The facts are that we already produce enough food for 10 billion people, but we waste between 30-40%. We also have a global population that is 13% obese and another 39% overweight, so some of us have double or triple maintenance feeds.
Sri Lanka’s recent government decision to force farmers to go organic was always going to be a disaster. You can’t go cold turkey on soils that rely heavily on synthetic fertilizers, but with a managed transition over three to five years, production can be maintained, as many RA farmers in New Zealand have proven.
RA has been quite divisive and has been viewed as a threat to our current agricultural systems.
Farmers should see RA as an opportunity to manage their soil, plants and animals as an integrated ecosystem. It has no restrictive standards like organics, and it focuses on results. The results include improved soil and plant biodiversity, less reliance on synthetic fertilizers, including nitrogen, lower input costs and fewer environmental problems.
You can hop on the RA bus at any level and try out aspects on your own farm without making any major changes. We are all farm level scientists when we change inputs and measure the changes in the barrel or on the bottom line.
This country will take time to develop a Kiwi RA system unique to our own microclimates, but the seeds have been sown! I believe that the future agricultural innovation will come from the regenerative sector.
We must honor Gwen Grelet, a senior researcher at Landcare Research who co-authored the first study on RA in New Zealand
Comments from the scientific community denouncing her work and the lack of science for going against the story were nothing more than bullying tactics.
An organic regenerative brand could be the gold standard for New Zealand farming and a logical progression for farmers who have achieved good performance levels and low input costs with RA. It would open up new opportunities in high-value markets at a premium over other production systems.
– Allan Richardson is an organic and regenerative farmer in West Otago and board member of Organics Aotearoa New Zealand