5 minute read
Pulpit
Balance the argument
Jess Cochrane
IAM writing regarding the ‘Regen will take courage’ article you published on April 23.
Like many, I was compelled to read the article, believing it to be about collaboration between conventional and regenerative farming leaders. It had many positive points, including the acknowledgment of past environmental degradation, the need for good biodiversity, livestock care, and the care of our people. Unfortunately, it also contained a large collection of uncritically evaluated or factchecked Jules Matthews quotes. While it is important to share opinions, there is a point – when these opinions are voiced as truth – that these opinions should be fact-checked or expanded upon further.
There are many disingenuous claims that need to be addressed in this article, but her comments on production and productivity are of particular concern and it was remiss of Farmers Weekly not to challenge them or at least provide some form of critique.
The quote “we keep being told that it’s our job to feed the world but that’s not our job” is by far the most dangerous suggestion to leave unquestioned. Yes, it can be fully acknowledged that the pursuit of production and productivity has caused environmental issues in the past that are still being dealt with today, but that does not make the whole concept an inherently negative one.
To pursue reduced production and productivity, and to give up on feeding the world requires an incredible recognition of privilege. Privilege in the form of no or low financial burdens, which in turn allow the reduced income, which results from the conversion to regen.
It also requires the privilege of living in a country that can feed itself more than four times over, even with reduced production. To suggest that “feeding the world ... is not our job” is ignorant to these privileges, but also reeks of an insular us versus them standpoint.
Should we not help supply food to countries that cannot produce food at our level of quality or efficiency, with as little carbon emissions as we currently do? It is my hope, and I am choosing to believe, that Jules doesn’t intend it to come off this way, but the regen argument against feeding the world comes off as ignorant at best, and xenophobic at worst, and thus should be critically examined and challenged.
Other points that require their own clarification are the points about “chemical-based and acid-based fertiliser use” due to the implication that chemicals and fertilisers result in negative outcomes.
The entire world, and our own bodies are made up of chemicals. To define some chemicals as bad and others as good is blatant misrepresentation of facts and shows a clear misunderstanding of how chemicals function in the world.
Any chemical has the potential to cause harm, when used at concentrations high enough to cause toxicity. A great example of this is water, the most essential chemical in the world, is toxic to our bodies if we consume over three to four litres in a short period of time.
Yet water would never be considered a bad chemical, despite its potential for harm. To leave chemophobia unchecked in your articles is to directly support the interests of certain groups, and to take a direct stance against well accepted and researched science.
The other claim that definitely requires disputing is the one around acid-based fertilisers, and making negative generalisations about them when it is a far more complex and nuanced situation.
As explained above, any chemical has the potential for harm when used at a dose or concentration higher than what is deemed a safe usage limit.
Of more concern is the specific mention of acid-based, It is well established in the agricultural science community – over many decades of research – that some fertilisers have the potential to acidify the soil. I will not dispute this. However, it must be strongly noted that for decades, soil scientists have known about this risk to soil health and have thus recommended soil tests, and then the subsequent liming of paddocks.
Liming of paddocks reverses the effects of these fertilisers and raises the pH of the soil back to optimal levels. I can attest to the longevity of this knowledge, my family farm’s earliest soil test – with pH test included – was conducted in 1984, nearly four decades ago. To suggest we have an acid-based fertiliser problem in this country is blatant misrepresentation of the truth and should come with a fact-check attached.
Overall, I agree with many aspects of the regen movement and particularly with Jules about needing to work together. I would therefore remind Jules and Farmers Weekly that good communication is a two-way street. It is hard to have an open dialogue with someone who is telling you that everything you are doing is destroying the environment – a factually incorrect statement – and then also fails to give you the right of reply so that very valid concerns can be addressed.
How can consensus and collaboration happen if the regen movement disregards all the hard work our industry has done to do better? Finally, I would state that I agree with Jules that courage is needed, but not in the way she speaks of. It will take courage to fact check emotive statements to see how they align with very basic scientific principles, so that scientific literacy in this country can be restored.
The regen movement must commit to recognising and respecting the scientific approach that has worked to guide progress within this industry. If the regen movement wants to see truly transformative change, then factual and scientific approaches must lead the conversation, and good communication between scientists, farmers, industry leaders, and regen folks must be prioritised.
If we could harness the passion of regen educators for people’s wellbeing and the environment and combine their message with the fantastic science that has been done over the years, and continues to be done, then New Zealand ag really could be on the path to something special.
ThePulpit
TWO SIDES: Jess Cochrane weighs in on the regen debate, and says while it is important to share opinions, she stresses the importance of providing a counter argument.
Who am I?
Jess Cochrane is a farmer from Waimate, South Canterbury. She works on their family farm Crystal Brook, and has a passion for agriculture and environmental sustainability. She has a BSc in Geology and a BA in History and appreciates a robust scientific approach to new information.
Your View
Got a view on some aspect of farming you would like to get across? The Pulpit offers readers the chance to have their say. farmers.weekly@globalhq.co.nz Phone 06 323 1519
