what do you think of Peter Andrews and his "natural sequence farming",
I suppose I'm a sceptic at this stage. I've seen all the ABC programs and done some research on his system.
He has a lot of support, so obviously he must be doing good things in his little neck of the woods. I'd like to see some really good reseach done, scientific stuff, with all the figures and the like to see what really is happening.
He has claimed that he could solve the problems of the Murray/Darling. Now that is a massive call,..!! I just can't see that at all. My theory on the Murray/Darling is, it is due to the improved productivity of agriculture. We are retaining more moisture on our farms though more fertile soils, more productive farm methods, more legumes, more ground cover etc. Now Peter's methods involve a lot of that too, so why does he think he can solve the rivers lack of water?
I look at what happened up my valley 30 years ago,.......to today......
30 years ago the creeks always ran water but today they don't. I played in the creeks all the time as a kid and everyone laments the lack of water in them now. And my rainfall is not falling. It has risen slightly in 70 years on average.
30 years ago........................... verses today,.......
ploughing soil, .........................verses stubble retension and zero till today.
Unfertilized native grasses, .........verses fertilized, introduced improved grasses and legumes.
Productivity of grazing and farming would be 3 times as much today. Add to that more contour banks, more irrigation, more farm dams, and this is why there is less runoff into the rivers.
If Peters methods retain water and increase productivity so much then how will it lead to the rivers being saved?
Peter talks of blocking up the creeks. Thats fine. If it works for him, then great. I'm farming floodplain land. It needs drainage. If water doesn't drain then there is increased risk of salinity.
Peter is a massive fan of weeds and slashing. He says weeds improve the soil, and you slash them to stop them going to seed. I say get rid of weeds early and that weeds grow on less fertile soil. Farmers who look after their soil have less weeds. It's a case of the chicken and the egg here. I do use slashing of some of my pastures. At times it's the best method, however I'm a small time grazier and only have very small areas to slash. It would not be economic on large commercial areas, or where there are rocks, too many trees or too steep.
Finally, I don't like how Peter denegrates Australian agriculture. It's much like Jarrod Diamond, David Suzuki, and others. If things are so crook then why is productivity so much higher today? Productivity is higher, yes, because we use so much more fertilizer and stuff that Peter doesn't like, but the plain and simple fact is that if the soil was buggered like he says then it wouldn't work no matter how much artificial crap you threw at it.
Australian farmers have never used European farming methods. And especially not today. We have our own unique farming methods and we are world leaders in them.
Peter has also gone bust and lost his original family farm. I think it was 1994, a drought year. OK. Maybe it was bad luck. But others haven't gone bust and are going from strength to strength. Peter is now working for a billionaire breeding racehorses. If you've ever driven past a horse stud owned by a billionaire, you'll know that money spent has no limit. If you put on enough organic fertilizer, say tonnes to the acre, you will have amazing soil no matter what, but there is an economic cost. And that organic fertilizer was produced from animal manure, that came from animals that were fed grain that was grown using artificial oil based fertilizers. I'd like to see his stuff done on a genuine family farm where real decisions make or break the business.
Probably not what you wanted to hear. Just being honest.
See ya's.
