I view two pressures as given the rise to this marketing strategy; people hoping modern agriculture can continue with burgers for everyone anytime they want one. The other is those who own farms and land can generally afford the consulting fees. Hooray, you can all keep sitting on your rears eating burgers and chips, these people will save you from actually tending a garden!
I do think this strategy is better than chemical ag, more long lasting, still not sustainable, the designs promoted are limited to certain geographical and climate zones, farm types, and is just limited, next to no farms are converting.
The problem is the hierarchy and I think the global elite will use this methodology at some point, when enough corporate farm soil no longer works with the chemicals, or becomes to expensive, to retain their positions.
I agree with many of the comments here. As a someone who has been around farming/ranching my entire life in one way or the other and comes from generations of farmers and ranchers, there isn't a "one size fits all" when it comes to soil health anymore than there's a one size fits all for human beings. Soil is, in essence, a living organism. There's soooo many variables that go into determining the right approach for maintaining soil health. There's a huge difference between the soil in a tropical climate and the soil in an arid climate. The microbes one would find in one area are not the same as you would find in another. The organic matter available is also wildly different from one location to the next. (For instance, one may be able to throw some wood chips on the ground in Tennessee and those wood chips will rot away in short order, where if you throw wood chips on the ground where I live, those wood chips will take decades to break down). In my area, if I don't "dig in" some organic matter, it will take *years* to break down. I have to dig it in. And my soil is healthy, productive, full of nice worms and grubs and things that should be there (and a few things that shouldn't). My point, of course, is that once again "the powers that should not be" are going to tell everyone on the entire planet exactly what they should do... instead of letting people in their own area determine what is best. I'm really growing tired of the monsters attempting to turn every aspect of our lives into McDonalds franchises. (The Big Mac you get in Maine will taste the same as the Big Mac you get in Arizona). It's insanity. And it *won't* "save the planet. (But it just may starve the hell out of a lot of people... which may be exactly what they want.)
They're referring to carbon capture and retention into the earth through farming is far more dubious, evil than si.ple crop rotation. "Scientists" have bioengineered new trees and plants that suck in more CO2 and NEVER DIE OR DECAY, as their root structure is similar to the skin of avocados and cantaloupes. These bond-villain-funded nut jobs want to wipe out our best farmland on earth by planting an bioengineered invasive species, with no idea of the true consequences and based on the fantasy of anthropogenic global warming. I suspect this is what the billionaires intend to do with their recent large farmland acquisitions. Bad news, this.
Their main focus is soil fertility, focussing on top soil regeneration. There are a number of different ways to achieve this. Rotational grazing with sometimes moving the area being grazed up to four times a day, or leaving an area vacant for a while to regenerate. They use multiple crop rotation, ground cover and perennials to protect the soil and water retention. No tiling or digging as this breaks the structure of the soil and releases built up carbon. They gradually eliminate the use of synthetic fertilisers. It is growing in popularity in Australia because there is not much top soil left. There is a lot of interest in New Zealand also. I hear about it a fair bit, as my nephew farms this way near Clinton, South Otago. V. Dominique is right in stating that ruminant livestock farming is at the forefront. However, it could be applied to all types of farming, even home gardening.
Considering that grazing ruminant livestock plays a significant role in regenerative agriculture, I'd be surprised if the 'eat-the-bugs' crowd is pushing it. Not sure how well it would work on a large scale or for certain staple crops (wheat, corn, potatoes, etc.), but on a small scale it may be the way to go.
Here is a link to a site that discusses regenerative agriculture and other issues related to livestock and diet.
I view two pressures as given the rise to this marketing strategy; people hoping modern agriculture can continue with burgers for everyone anytime they want one. The other is those who own farms and land can generally afford the consulting fees. Hooray, you can all keep sitting on your rears eating burgers and chips, these people will save you from actually tending a garden!
I do think this strategy is better than chemical ag, more long lasting, still not sustainable, the designs promoted are limited to certain geographical and climate zones, farm types, and is just limited, next to no farms are converting.
The problem is the hierarchy and I think the global elite will use this methodology at some point, when enough corporate farm soil no longer works with the chemicals, or becomes to expensive, to retain their positions.
I agree with many of the comments here. As a someone who has been around farming/ranching my entire life in one way or the other and comes from generations of farmers and ranchers, there isn't a "one size fits all" when it comes to soil health anymore than there's a one size fits all for human beings. Soil is, in essence, a living organism. There's soooo many variables that go into determining the right approach for maintaining soil health. There's a huge difference between the soil in a tropical climate and the soil in an arid climate. The microbes one would find in one area are not the same as you would find in another. The organic matter available is also wildly different from one location to the next. (For instance, one may be able to throw some wood chips on the ground in Tennessee and those wood chips will rot away in short order, where if you throw wood chips on the ground where I live, those wood chips will take decades to break down). In my area, if I don't "dig in" some organic matter, it will take *years* to break down. I have to dig it in. And my soil is healthy, productive, full of nice worms and grubs and things that should be there (and a few things that shouldn't). My point, of course, is that once again "the powers that should not be" are going to tell everyone on the entire planet exactly what they should do... instead of letting people in their own area determine what is best. I'm really growing tired of the monsters attempting to turn every aspect of our lives into McDonalds franchises. (The Big Mac you get in Maine will taste the same as the Big Mac you get in Arizona). It's insanity. And it *won't* "save the planet. (But it just may starve the hell out of a lot of people... which may be exactly what they want.)
https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI
I don't know if this is maybe interesting, I don't know enough either but i found it inspiring.
They're referring to carbon capture and retention into the earth through farming is far more dubious, evil than si.ple crop rotation. "Scientists" have bioengineered new trees and plants that suck in more CO2 and NEVER DIE OR DECAY, as their root structure is similar to the skin of avocados and cantaloupes. These bond-villain-funded nut jobs want to wipe out our best farmland on earth by planting an bioengineered invasive species, with no idea of the true consequences and based on the fantasy of anthropogenic global warming. I suspect this is what the billionaires intend to do with their recent large farmland acquisitions. Bad news, this.
Their main focus is soil fertility, focussing on top soil regeneration. There are a number of different ways to achieve this. Rotational grazing with sometimes moving the area being grazed up to four times a day, or leaving an area vacant for a while to regenerate. They use multiple crop rotation, ground cover and perennials to protect the soil and water retention. No tiling or digging as this breaks the structure of the soil and releases built up carbon. They gradually eliminate the use of synthetic fertilisers. It is growing in popularity in Australia because there is not much top soil left. There is a lot of interest in New Zealand also. I hear about it a fair bit, as my nephew farms this way near Clinton, South Otago. V. Dominique is right in stating that ruminant livestock farming is at the forefront. However, it could be applied to all types of farming, even home gardening.
Considering that grazing ruminant livestock plays a significant role in regenerative agriculture, I'd be surprised if the 'eat-the-bugs' crowd is pushing it. Not sure how well it would work on a large scale or for certain staple crops (wheat, corn, potatoes, etc.), but on a small scale it may be the way to go.
Here is a link to a site that discusses regenerative agriculture and other issues related to livestock and diet.
https://lachefnet.wordpress.com/