16 April 2025
What I did:
I read the Introduction, Chapter 1, and Conclusion of Alicia Kennedy’s book, “No Meat Required” and attended her keynote address/ fireside chat. I reviewed the soil health assessment in more depth and critically evaluated how the rankings and recommendations compared to what I know about the land. I communicated with Liz about picking up the seeds from her office and also communicated with Scott Multisch who will be dropping off the fence materials at the farm. I planned a time to get trained on the flail mower with Josh next week so I can prepare the land for seeding the cover crop.
What I learned:
Critical Analysis of the Soil Health Assessment
Aggregate stability is a measure of how well soil aggregates (peds, clumps) hold together under rainfall or when a soil gets wet rapidly (for example, under intense irrigation). Aggregate stability can indicate the biological and physical health of the soil, as aggregates are held together by microbial colonies. Soils that have good aggregate stability are resistant to runoff, erosion, and crusting. When soils “crust,” it is as if they become sealed off, restricting gas exchange between the air and soil, making the soil more resistant to infiltration during rainfall events, and creating a more difficult barrier for emerging seedlings. Conversely, soils that have good aggregate stability have good aeration (allowing for microbial communities to thrive), facilitate infiltration, and store water in pore spaces between aggregates. The aggregate stability of Field R was 17%, meaning that when exposed to water stress, only 17% of the aggregates resisted disintegration. This indicator received a score of 22, placing it in the “low” category, but on the border of being “very low,” making it close to being a constraining function. Considering the history of this soil and the various slake tests that have been conducted by engineering classes the past few years, poor aggregate stability is not a new problem for this soil and does not come as a surprise.
Soil respiration is a measure of the metabolic activity of the microbial community, indicating the abundance and activity levels of microbial life which perform key functions in soils, including nutrient cycling and contributing to aggregate formation. The soil respiration value is low, indicating there is a poor microbial community and/or it is not active. This is unsurprising considering the aggregate stability of the soil is poor, allowing for crusting to inhibit gas exchange and effectively “suffocating” microbes.
The organic matter of the soil is in the high range, however, because there is a poor microbial presence (indicated by low soil respiration and poor aggregate stability), the inorganic nitrogen cannot be freed from the organic nitrogen sources in the soil through the activities of microorganisms. No matter how much organic matter is in the soil, if there are not microbial communities present to make nutrients bioavailable to plants, that organic matter is nothing more than a mulch at most. The SOC (Soil Organic Carbon) value for this soil is 1.74%. Research has shown that soils with less than 2% SOC suffer a decline in structural stability, crop yields, and the ability for soils to cycle nutrients.
This relates to the fact that the predicted soil protein is low. Predicted soil protein is the fraction of the SOM (soil organic matter) that is present as protein or protein-like substances and influences the ability of the soil to make nitrogen available. SOM attracts and holds many soluble plant available nutrients so the nutrients can be made available to the plant. This is critical because it acts as a store of nutrients or slow-release mechanism as microorganisms can break down these compounds over time. In contrast, water soluble nutrients, such as those added by granular chemical fertilizers are water soluble and immediately available to plants but do not get retained by the soil, leaching out if they exist in excess.
This soil is a silt loam, meaning that it is inherently better at retaining water than a sandy loam. According to researchers at Cornell Labs, “In heavier (fine textured) soils, the available water capacity is generally less constraining, because they naturally have high water retention ability. Instead, they are typically more limited in their ability to supply air to plant roots during wet periods, and to allow for enough infiltration to store water if rains come infrequently in heavy events.” The predicted available water capacity is very high relative to soils with similar textures. This suggestion is contradictory to what I would expect for this soil, considering how poor the aggregate stability is. I am skeptical about the high rating.
The extractable phosphorus, potassium, and additional nutrients all scored 100. I could not find information about what specific range/value was too high, however, I do know that excess of one nutrient can inhibit plants from taking up other essential nutrients.
Reflection
Upon looking closer at the Soil Health Assessment, I discovered that some indicators and rankings seemed to contradict one another. I think this shows the limits of sending a sample to a lab far away for testing to learn about how “good” a soil is. I know that the practices employed on Field R in the past were not sustainable, however the results ranked this soil “High.” Some indicators that ranked high surprised me in this regard, however, other indicators were sub-optimal and verified what I had thought. Combining my personal knowledge and experiences with the data from Cornell is most useful. Did I need Cornell to tell me that the soil aggregation was poor and microbial levels were low? No, I could expect as much. But does this information in numerical terms make these concepts more digestible and presentable to other audiences? Yes, and so I intend to continue to engage with multiple forms of producing and conveying knowledge.
Takeaways from Alicia Kennedy
I was quite surprised by how forward Alicia Kennedy was, both in her book and in her comments during the Keynote. For example, she was not afraid to say, “I do not like to eat meat and I do not like when other people eat meat.” Most people might keep such an absolute statement to themselves so as not to offend anyone, however, she has strong beliefs and wants them to be heard.
Despite my differences from Kennedy in diet choices, as I am not vegan, vegetarian, and do not think I will ever be, there were many points she made that resonated with me personally and also related directly to my independent study.
Kennedy often used the term “agroecology” which I thought was interesting given the research I did on past alternative agriculture movements. She opted to use this term and not regenerative agriculture, although I think the principles behind both are the same.
I think one of the most compelling statements Kennedy made in her book was about the stereotype of the “image of veganism in most omnivores heads is so white” because “then it’s easy to dismiss.” This is similar to how she said during her talk “counter culture is very white and people often want to wipe it away” instead of acknowledging that there is counter culture that is not white and that existed before. If a movement is “white,” it can be viewed as just another trend, however if a movement comes from a community that has experienced oppression and violence, it cannot be dismissed, because doing so would be dismissing justice, as this movement “threatens” to become something greater than a food choice, it is a social/political/cultural statement.
Kennedy brought up the issue of how tech companies want to upscale alternative meat products, however, that would not change the system, but merely replace mass produced meat with mass produced fake meat, continuing with the status quo of capitalism. This made me think about how food justice cannot be produced on a mass scale, just as I have come to acknowledge that regenerative agriculture cannot be produced on a mass scale. It takes relocalization of food systems, plural. There should not be one food system, there should be tons of food systems that are situated in a specific place and within a specific cultural context. Just like there is no one way to engage in regenerative agriculture to grow food, there is no one way to go about consuming food. I think the greater goal is not to give up one food group, like meat, but to give up one way of producing food– mass-scale, mechanized production.
What I’m doing next:
Next week will be a lot of field work: setting up the fence, getting trained on the BCS to flail mow the corn debris, sowing the cover crop. I am hoping I can get all of these tasks done next week now that I finally have all the materials I need, however, this is a lot to take on. One of my friends offered to help me set up the fence. I have set up a time to meet with Josh to use the BCS.
Category: Memos
8 April 2025
What I did:
This week, I wrote an email to Liz Foulton about ordering the materials I need. I also updated my syllabus for the rest of the semester, now that I have a better sense of what I am hoping to accomplish. I finalized my presentation and speaker notes. This past weekend was the Northeast Student Food and Farm Conference, at which I presented about my Independent Study.
What I learned:
Most of what I learned this week came from presenting and having conversation at the Northeast Student Food and Farm Conference.
The process of creating my presentation allowed me to reflect on just how much this study has evolved since it began. As someone who likes to stick to plans that have been set in place, I am surprised at how flexible and adaptable I have been throughout this semester. I dealt with the uncertainty of what land would be available to me, I changed my entire study question, and I altered my syllabus and budget numerous times.
I was anxious to give my presentation, hoping that what I decided to talk about would educate the audience and match their expectations for the description I had written. It was difficult to make decisions about what information to include and exclude, but I felt that I created a presentation that gave a good overview of the process and content of my independent study up to this point. Moreover, the questions that followed showed me that the audience was engaged in critically thinking about what I had said and wanted to learn more. Some questions were questions that I still have yet to answer, such as the question of, “What happens next? When you graduate, what will become of the land?” and, “What is your goal with doing this?”
I learned about different ideas of how this land could be used in the future. For example, Eli from Monocacy Farm Project discussed the possibility of planting traditional trees of the Delaware Nation and was interested in partnering with me.
In a conversation with Delicia, I learned that there is a Regenerative Certification that farms can attain (similar to Organic Certification), and that someone at Rodale had reached out to her to see if Lafayette would be interested in pursuing certification and becoming a learning center for regenerative agriculture.
What I’m doing next:
In advance of Alicia Kennedy coming to visit campus, I would like to read some excerpts of her book, “No Meat Required.” Hopefully by next week, the stakes and fencing arrive so I can set those up (this might have to wait until the week after). I plan on getting trained to use the flail mower on the BCS to flail mow the corn debris this coming week.
25 February 2025
What I did:
This week I read about the concept of calculability in agriculture and how regenerative agriculture practices are often reduced to figures that can be incorporated into “farming by numbers” rather than fundamentally changing argi-food systems. The article I read centered on soil microbiology as an example of this. I read another article about working towards a decolonial definition of regenerative agriculture and the importance of reincorporating values and cultural significance to interactions with land. I must admit, I am still processing everything I learned and what it all means. Growing pains.
(Side note: There are SO MANY overlaps with this study and Land Acts.)
What I learned: (a LOT… this doesn’t even capture it all…)
Moving towards an Anti-colonial Definition for Regenerative Agriculture
https://research.ebsco.com/c/q4dy5d/viewer/html/6cb6tgskjz
Interest in soil microbes is growing in popularity as individuals recognize their important role in soil health. The recognition of these microorganisms can contribute to understandings that soils are living and agential. However, the way that they are being incorporated into agriculture reinforces current environmental relationships in which microbes as another data point to be measured and monitored, rather than encouraging alternative approaches to agriculture. Quantification reduces objects to numbers, calculation creates relationships of value between the objects and comes to a conclusion about such objects and relationships. In agriculture, quantification and calculability have been used to improve and progress, rendering land, non-humans, and humans calculable.
It is common to discuss how governance systems can be oppressive and harmful, however, habits of self-governance, which are influenced by overarching power structures, often go unconsidered. “Habits of self-governance are ingrained by training, fostering, inciting, and even coercing individuals to observe and self-regulate their behaviour.” Governance systems need not constantly be reminding us how to act because we have been “trained” how to act; there is a biopolitical power operating within us, not just outside of us. This need not scare us, rather, it can be a source of hope that we can change our habits of self-governance as a way of resisting the ecologically and socially damaging power of biopolitics.
The modern farm mimics a factory in which the farmer is the factory manager. The ideal manager self-regulates, always seeking to optimize their behavior in line with governance objectives. For example, if the government desires more profit, the manager can alter their operations to make more money. Or, if the government desires higher yields, the manager can implement practices that produce higher yields. For this operation to function properly, the manager must be able to assess the impacts of their decisions before making them. Calculability provides evidence that the manager can use to justify a certain decision, especially a change in behavior. This is especially critical when providing a rationale that demonstrates the value of their decisions for themselves and others.
Microbioloitics involves creating categories of microscopic biological agents. Counter-microbiopolitics resists the aforementioned categorization due to how the strict organization of microbial (and human) lives causes social and ecological harm. Rather than continuing to operate under structures informed by biopolitical knowledge, a shift to embodied ways of knowing can resist oppressive structures. A focus on the body and the specificity of encounters with the environment can disrupt anthropocentric ideologies in which humans view themselves as the central beneficiaries of services and resources. A shift from knowing-as-observing to knowing-as-relating is a way to begin reshaping our encounters with the land and each other.
Organisms do not function as bounded entities although Western scientific practices like to think so, studying or experimenting with organisms in isolation. Microorganisms help with interrelations between organisms; their absence from social and ecological life has caused ecosystem collapse and declines in mental and physical health in humans. Encounters with microbes can occur in agricultural settings, however they are present in other environments such as our own bodies and artisanal trades (sourdough, cheesemaking). Learning about the capacities of microbes in everyday activities is a way for people to expand their worldview. That is to say that everyone can and should learn about how microbes impact their lives on a daily basis and in different mediums. Cultivating this awareness can ultimately be traced back to agriculture and food systems. For example, in considering one’s gut microbiome, one must consider how the food they eat impacts that microbiome; where that food came from and how it was grown (especially the conditions under which it grew) are tied to one agricultural landscape or another.
Soil microbes present a life-line for farmers who constantly struggle to make a living. Straying away from a reliance on expensive inputs can be a way to cut costs; “cheap labor” of microbes or “cheap nature” of crop residues are appealing (this perspective problematically reduces microbes, plants, etc. as tools to be used rather than beings to work with).
Farmers in this study that began implementing cover crops and reducing chemical inputs utilized their senses to observe changes in their soils including the look, touch, and smell, developing localized and embodied knowledge. Unfortunately, farmers were uncomfortable with relying on this type of knowledge alone, still wanting a financial or tangible benefit to justify their practices. One farmer foresaw big-data science utilizing AI to interpret large amounts of data regarding soil microbial makeups to make this part of agriculture more “legible” for conventional practices that rely on calculability rather than embodied knowledge.
In conclusion, the consideration of microbial communities as critical parts of ecosystems and agriculture does not challenge existing conventional systems. Facilitating environments where microbes can thrive is by no means a silver bullet in solving problems of soil health and land degradation. Rather, how microbes are acknowledged matters, who leads knowledge production and sharing of these organisms matters, and whose interests that knowledge serves matters.
As one farmer in the study put it, “farms are businesses…”
But what if they weren’t?
The author states, “If you can’t manage what you can’t measure, then you also can’t be a manager of an unmeasurable domain.”
Management of farms as businesses relies on this idea of calculability.
But what if we stopped relying on calculations for management? What if we acknowledged the unmeasurability of domains around us and no longer reduced the world to numbers and associated values? What if we relied on embodied knowledge for management?
Moving towards an Anti-colonial Definition for Regenerative Agriculture
https://research.ebsco.com/c/q4dy5d/viewer/html/6cb6tgskjz
Regenerative practices cannot be layered atop an agricultural industry that is grounded in principles of production and profits. Well, they have been, but they have done nothing to address problems within a food system with a history of deep ecological and social injustices. Regenerative practices will only have effective change if they are applied to a system with renewed principles and values.
Land sparing is a concept that is common in places with histories of colonialism, separating out land for different purposes and embracing the concept of “wilderness,” also termed “colonial conservation.” Another concept, land sharing, is quite different in how land is regarded; seeking to produce food while conserving, restoring, and regenerating the natural environment. Even 12,000 years ago, nearly 75% of land was inhabited by human societies. The idea of wilderness could not be any more “unnatural.” Through careful and intentional intervention, societies can balance the needs of humans and nonhumans. However, transformations cannot only happen in practices, they must happen in principle. Often, relational values of “respect” and “love” are dismissed, values which are essential in Indigenous worldviews. The ecological concerns of agriculture are often addressed in isolation with science-backed methods that promise improvement. However, because the ecological concerns of food systems are caused by economic, social, and political injustices, they cannot be solved without changes to existing socio-economic and political systems.
Many regenerative agriculture practices that are being implemented in modern agricultural systems are found in pre-colonial systems around the world and emerged independently in different times and cultures. Collaboration of Western science with Indigenous expertise is beneficial yet only if incompatible elements of each system do not get left behind, for example, cultural significance and values. Many farmers have a sense of stewardship and connection to the land, however this is often overwhelmed by financial concerns. In order to truly change our landscapes– the physical world around us, we must reassess our mindscapes– how we conceptualize reality.
What I am doing next:
Next week I will be taking a break from theorizing… or at least taking a break from reading new articles. I cannot stop turning these ideas over in my head. I plan to review soil testing procedures and map out/measure the land that I would like to sample. Additionally, I would like to go out to LaFarm and get a sense of the land that I plan to work with, beyond just measuring it. What does it look like? What does it feel like? I have not yet heard back from Ryan Snyder.
19 February 2025
What I did:
This week I read about the history of regenerative agriculture and how it is situated in relation to other alternative agriculture movements. I also read a scoping review of regenerative agriculture practices. These two articles involved much less commentary on the social dynamics of regenerative agriculture; there was less of a critical tone and more observations. I sent a follow-up email to Ryan Snyder.
What I learned
“A Genealogy of Sustainable Agriculture Narratives: Implications for the Transformative Potential of Regenerative Agriculture”:
In industrial agriculture, the farm is analogous to a factory in which food is commodified at mass scale. Large corporations have been promoting RA which indicates the direction of regenerative agriculture. Corporations have co-opted many alternative agricultural movements in the past including Organic Agriculture (OA), Conservation Agriculture (CA), and Sustainable Intensification (SI). Once the corporate actors adopt alternative agriculture narratives, it diminishes their ability to make necessary transformations. The only prominent alternative agricultural movement that has not been co-opted by large corporations is agro-ecology. When corporations begin to endorse a mode of agriculture, by nature it extinguishes that movement’s ability to make systemic and structural changes.
The organic movement, at its inception, was inspired by scientific research that proved soil was alive. Indigenous people have held this belief since time immemorial, however, it stemmed from creation stories and long histories of being in relation with land rather than Western science. Organic agriculture discouraged the use of external inputs and rejected the view of land as an inanimate resource. Demand for organic food quickly surpassed the supply and large-scale organic farms took over the movement. Over the years, the organic movement has largely been reduced to an industrialized system which approves the use of organic chemical inputs.
Conservation agriculture promoted the use of technologies to encourage soil conservation. This movement was centered around no-till or low-till machinery such as the broadleaf weed killer and seed drill to replace conventional tillage practices. It is important to note that this alternative agriculture still relied on fossil fuels to power the new machines and heavily relied on chemical inputs, GM crops, and pesticides.
Sustainable intensification was inspired by issues of food insecurity. This movement advocated for increasing yields without cultivating more land; essentially, farming the same amount of land with more intensity. This movement quickly fell out of favor, coinciding with the rise of Regenerative agriculture.
Agroecology has a principles-based focus, rather than a set of standards (like OA), integrating ecology with agriculture. It aims to transform uneven power distributions that industrial agriculture perpetuates. The main concern with agroecology is its ability to keep up adequate food production and consumption patterns based on its low-external input model. The case with agroecology is a tricky one, as its radical agri-food system transformation inherently deters corporate co-option, however, this also diminishes its popularity and level of engagement from the global community.
When governing powers and corporations institutionalize alternative agriculture movements, they prevent them from transforming the uneven power distribution, hence why new terms keep being invented.
Both the issues and solutions for sustainable agriculture are place based and should be locally grounded, necessitating a plurality of sustainable agriculture narratives. The term regenerative agriculture is still contested and subject to co-option. Regenerative agriculture may not have a definition but it may not need one. Definitions can be limited. A set of principles for regenerative agriculture that can be adapted to different social, ecological, and cultural contexts is more beneficial than a single definition. Organic is not the way forward, conservation agriculture is not the way forward, sustainable intensification is not the way forward. There is no one way forward.
“What goes in and what comes out: a scoping review of regenerative agricultural practices. (+ideas from Healing Grounds)”:
The scoping review of agricultural practices discusses RA through a soil-centric lens and does not address social justice elements.
RA has been characterized by low input agriculture, focusing on stimulating biology that is pre existing in soils to help cycle nutrients, replacing some of the need for nutritional amendments like fertilizer, compost, and manure. Regenerative farms have been found to be more profitable than their conventional counterparts in the long term, but in the short term, specifically 2-3 years, making the transition from conventional agriculture to regenerative agriculture is a period of lower yields and financial deficit; gradual change can soften this.
RA cannot be a completely closed system based on the nature of food production as nutrients leave the farm when food leaves the farm; therefore, some external inputs are needed to replace them.There are no specific descriptions or explanations regarding the types of inputs that are used in RA which is appropriate, as the nature of RA requires a placed-based nuance.
Farmers are not the only ones who need to make changes for regenerative agriculture to transform food systems; a shift in mindset of consumers will be critical. This entails shifting from a focus on high yield to high diversity; diverting from market-driven production to production suited for localities.
Conventional agriculture has high reliance on off-farm, extractive inputs and follows a “linear take-make-dump” framework. On the other hand, regenerative agriculture follows a non-linear framework. However, to suggest that regenerative agriculture can be defined as a cyclical framework is a gross oversimplification. There are many cycles within regenerative agriculture that operate in complex interconnected ways that are beyond human comprehension. Through repeated exposure to and interactions with the living beings and nonliving elements in nature, one can begin to guess at the complexities of these systems and try to make sense of them. It cannot be learned in a season or a few years. Knowing the land takes time. Sometimes there may be misunderstandings, maybe our first impressions are wrong. But regenerative agriculture calls for a shift from telling the land how we want it to serve us to listening to what a unique area has to offer. An example of this can be found in Healing Grounds in which rural farmers in Mexico rely on ancestral knowledge and experience rather than modern chemicals. They have distinct knowledge of a multitude of corn varieties that they can draw from to select hyper specific crops based on the precipitation that year or the elevation they intend to plant. These varieties were bred not in a lab, but over generations of experience working with family and friends, the crop, and the land, including everything that comprises that land (fungi, bacteria, non-crop plants, insects, etc).
What I am doing next:
Next week I will be reading two more articles that go beyond an objective point of view that reviews alternative agriculture movements and practices common in regenerative agriculture. One of the articles comments on “farming by the numbers” and calls for a move beyond this calculative approach. The second article will discuss regenerative agriculture from an anti-colonial point of view. I hope these articles will give me some insight on how to make sense of what a “rock-the-boat” regenerative agriculture movement would look like. I should hear back from Ryan Snyder by next week.
12 February 2025
What I did:
This week, I attended the PASA Conference from February 5-7. Many of the sessions that I selected to go to were those that I could link to my independent study. During this week, I also continued reading Healing Grounds. To my pleasant surprise, many themes in the book came up in the sessions that I was going to at PASA. I also read two articles: “Regenerative agriculture sequesters carbon—But that’s not the only benefit and shouldn’t be the only goal” and “Regenerative agriculture needs a reckoning.” I had planned on doing another reading for this week, however, I decided that I had enough content for this week between PASA, reading Healing Grounds, and reading two articles.
What I learned:
PASA and Healing Grounds
One of the sessions I went to at PASA was titled “A Deep Dive Into Soil Biology.” Having living plants in soil for as many months out of the year as possible is critical to maintain the microbial community. Microbes rely on living roots to survive whilst plants rely on microbes to obtain nutrients necessary for survival. Roots, fungi, and bacteria have a strong symbiotic relationship. From the moment seeds germinate, they establish connections with fungi in the soil. If fertilizer is present, seeds germinate in an “artificial environment” and do not feel the need to send out root exudates to attract fungi and bacteria. Therefore, fertilizer should be applied in a sidedress so that seeds must first establish themselves with a microbial network before tapping into the readily-available nutrients. Tips of growing roots send out sugary exudates to attract nutrient-containing bacteria which “swim” along root hairs. (Bacteria require a moist soil environment in order to move about; therefore, keeping soils moist is critical to maintaining a healthy microbial community.) The root tips then encompass the bacteria, extract the nutrients, and expel them back into the soil. In Healing Grounds, I learned that arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associate with most terrestrial plants (80% major food crops) and help with resistance to drought, pest, disease, soil aggregation, nutrient cycling. (Carlisle 94) The aforementioned statement from Healing Grounds was reiterated in this session and elaborated upon in more detail. Mycorrhizal fungi grow into most crop roots, extending the root network so plants can access more nutrients and water resources. The only crops which are not compatible with the mycorrhizal fungi are those belonging to the Brassica and Amaranthaceae families, explaining the 80% statistic that I had previously read. In order for the “underground herd” of bacteria and fungi to survive, soils must be kept moist and cool (between 85-90 fahrenheit). Practices such as mulching and cover cropping contribute to maintaining this environment when cash crops are not planted.
In one of the plenary talks, “Soil Organic Carbon” I learned that plant root inputs (sugary exudates) build soil 5-30x faster than aboveground organic material. This point further emphasizes the role that cover crops play in contributing to building soils. While mulching and composting are beneficial, living roots can contribute significantly to building soil deep within the surface.
In another talk, “Too Much of A Good Thing: Compost, Nutrients, and Watershed Health,” I learned that many farms have excess phosphorus from compost applications. Having an excess of certain nutrients in soils can contribute to eutrophication from runoff during high rainfall events. Additionally, excess of one nutrient in soil can inhibit plants’ absorption of other key nutrients. High quality compost with the right ratio of nutrients for a given field is critical to know before utilizing it. This contradicts the notion that compost is always good. This was a powerful takeaway given that Lafayette has recently started utilizing dining waste as compost on the farm, boasting of the circular food loop. Just as soil can be tested for its nutrient profile, compost can be tested. If compost is not good quality, it is better to use leaf mulch and granulated fertilizer to ensure excess of one nutrient is not degrading soil health.
Key takeaways to apply to LaFarm:
- Keep living roots in field as long as possible
- Keep soils moist and cool continuously
- Test compost for nutrient profile
- Do not plant seeds directly into fertilizer; apply fertilizer on side so that plant roots must establish before they can access it
Readings
“Regenerative agriculture sequesters carbon—But that’s not the only benefit and shouldn’t be the only goal”
Regenerative agriculture requires adaptation to what exists naturally in a system and utilizes minimal outside resources to allow a system to be regenerative, in other words, self-sustaining. Carbon sequestration can be an indicator for farmers that they are doing something right but is not the end goal of regenerative agriculture. Regenerative agriculture is all about symbiotic relationships, between people, animals, plants, microorganisms, and the land; there are no shortcuts to “achieving” regenerative agriculture.
“Regenerative agriculture needs a reckoning”
Regenerative agriculture is not just about changing the practices used on a farm or the end result of the farm’s produce or soil. Regenerative agriculture necessitates that all people be included and the systems that support conventional mechanized agriculture are dismantled because they are based on a foundation of land dispossession and racism. Without changing the foundation that conventional agriculture rests on, the ecological and environmental crisis that proponents of the mainstream regenerative agriculture movement are focused on remediating will not be solved. Exploitation and violence towards the land is directly linked to discrimination and exclusion of certain groups of people. One cannot begin to solve our ecological crisis without beginning to solve our social crisis. Regenerative agriculture is known to focus on biodiversity of plants and microorganisms, but it must also focus on diversity of people and a diversity of knowledge. Indigenous knowledge, from the beginning of settler colonialism, has been excluded and ignored. Indigenous people native to this land had experience developed over generations that allowed them to live in balance with the land. European settlers ignored and rejected the lifestyles of the Indigenous people they encountered, superimposed their practices from another continent on foreign land. There is not a lack of knowledge of how we can live in balance with the land, we have just been ignorant of it, willfully by those intent to maintain extreme power and wealth, unwillfully by those subject to the system that tries to keep them blind to the truth. There are solutions, there have been, we have just decided to live with the problems that we started for hundreds of years because at least they are our problems and we want the solutions to be our solutions. Regenerative agriculture will require humility.
What I am doing next:
After an intense week of sessions at the PASA conference, I will be reading a few articles about regenerative agriculture and continuing Healing Grounds. There will be less content that I am consuming this week which will allow me time to ponder what I have read and listened to up to this point. I would like to solidify where I will get funding for the soil tests that I want to do. Additionally, I intend to reach out to Ryan Snyder to follow up about the land I requested for my study.
A Framework for Anti-Colonial Regenerative Agriculture at LaFarm
Delaware Nation is a sovereign federally recognized Nation of Lenape people, whose ancestral homelands included eastern Pennsylvania. Through a fraudulent treaty, Thomas Penn stole over a million acres of land from the Lenape people, an act instrumental in their removal which continues to be protested.
The entangled values and practices we seek to apply are founded in Indigenous principles of loving-caring for the Earth. Including individuals of Delaware Nation is critical if we are to truly engage in Regenerative Agriculture on this land.
Values:
- Reciprocity: We acknowledge that we rely on beings and systems outside of ourselves. When the land gives to us, we must give back, just as when we give to the land, we expect it to give to us.
- Respect: We have an awareness of the importance of human and non-human units of this network and are thoughtful and intentional about how we treat them.
- Collective (human and non-human) wellbeing: We understand that the wellbeing of each unit of this network is critical to the wellbeing of all.
- Knowledge co-creation*: We seek to continuously learn from each other and value all backgrounds and identities.
- (Re)localization: We seek to understand the unique place where we are and pay attention to the microclimate and how the land we are working with responds to different practices.
Practices:
- Minimal soil disturbance → no-till
- Maintenance of vegetative soil cover→ cover crops grow when nothing else does
- Maximizing diversity → intercropping
- Minimizing synthetic agrichemicals → leaf mulch for organic matter, compost for nutrients, organic fertilizer as needed