Has Regenerative Agriculture's time arrived?

 In The Social dilemma, a documentary featured on Netflix, a group of young tech-savvy veterans of the social media world lay out their concerns about the undesirable influences exerted by social media giants on individual lives and on society writ large.  It’s a long and complicated story, but it comes down to this: These companies: Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, and others, consider your web presence, if you have one, almost entirely in terms of its capacity to draw “eyeballs”. They don’t make it their business to care about content per se. Ultimately, they’re selling ad space based on viewership.

A thought that occurred to me in the midst of my morose ruminations about social media: they might just be useful in telling us indirectly about the salience of a particular topic or person in society.  It goes without saying, of course, that having a high level of visibility on social media is not a figure of merit except in some narrow sense.  With that rather ill-formed thought in mind, I googled “regenerative agriculture”.  It took less than a second for Google to come up with 19,800,000 results.  Wow, I thought, that’s an impressive number!  Then I searched for links to Lady Gaga, whose music I often like, and came up with 210,000,000 results. Actually, the comparative results made me feel pretty good.  As a serious, non-entertainment topic, regenerative ag is doing pretty well. I feel a measure of confidence that regenerative agriculture is becoming a thing in the social universe. So what is it?

In the 1980s the Rodale Institute began using the term ‘regenerative agriculture’ in their publications and formed the Regenerative Agriculture Association. No one can give a definition that will leave everyone happy, but this one, borrowed from Wikipedia, should serve:

Regenerative agriculture is a system of farming principles and practices that seeks to rehabilitate and enhance the entire ecosystem of the farm by placing a heavy premium on soil health with attention also paid to water management, fertilizer use, and more.

The consequences of a century of reliance on industrial methods of farming have been devastating to the soils of America’s great plains. It all began when the U.S. passed the Homestead Acts of 1862 to encourage agricultural development of the Great Plains. A settler could claim ownership of up to 160 acres of land, provided that he lived on it for a period of five years and cultivated it. People had no idea how to farm the virgin plains as they became settled. As tractors and farm machinery became available, they did all the wrong things -- careless of maintaining the soil, deep-plowing the grasslands with abandon.  In the 1930s, droughts in the plains set up the conditions for the Dust Bowl, dust storms that proved to be the greatest single ecological disaster the nation has known. Unfortunately, the lessons of the Dust Bowl were not well learned.  A recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focusing on land details how the forced conversion of natural landscapes in the interests of increasing crop yields has worked havoc across the globe. 

 We don’t have many years left to halt soil degradation and to restore desertified land, to restore natural landscapes. The way back to restored, productive soil is at the same time a pathway toward lowering the concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. Regenerative agricultural practices involve no-till management of the soil, discontinuance of pesticides, herbicides and industrially produced fertilizers. Soils are kept with something planted year-round. Cover crops include legumes such as vetch, clover, radishes and peas, and annual grains such as winter rye. These cover crops are managed so that they protect the soil from erosion and build a soil rich with root systems that soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Regenerative agriculture is in effect, a restoration project, an obeisance to nature. Cash crops, such as corn or soybeans, are sown into soil that maintains its cover crops. You can learn about all this by watching the beautiful and inspiring film, Kiss the Ground. You’ll learn about regenerative agriculture from people like Gabe Brown, in my book a star right up there with Lady Gaga.

You can’t but wonder after watching Kiss the Ground why there hasn’t been a massive shift to regenerative ag practices.  One clue is that Gabe makes a point of not accepting money from the government. That might seem surprising, given that federal subsidies for agriculture are plentiful; on the order of $30 BILLION dollars annually.  A big fraction of that money goes into the pockets of large-scale farming operations and into the coffers of the big ag companies. All of that fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides, genetically modified seed varieties, and cash price support money, just for starters, has produced an enormous lobby invested in keeping the party going.  In 2019 the government spent $22 BILLION on farm aid related to the trade wars.  Farmers were getting checks that seemed to come out of the blue.

Remember all the fierce debates in Congress and in the public back in 2008 when the government bailed out the auto industry? I’m mystified why we don’t hear loud objections to the much larger recent subsidies to agriculture, much paid out by the USDA without the agency even going through Congress.  Agriculture seems to be built on one subsidy after another.  Many large landowners, already rich off federal money, wondered why they were getting unexpected checks.  Those billions might have been spent on other urgent social programs, instead of mollifying the farm block over potential losses resulting from President Trump’s trade wars. What a wasted opportunity!  What farmers do with their land has a huge impact on water quality, wildlife, and climate change. The USDA could have mounted effective programs that pay farmers to improve the environment, restoration of wetlands, and switching to regenerative methods of farming.

The saying goes that the present is but the child of the past. Let’s take a step back and ask why so much corn is grown across America’s heartland. An article written by Jonathan Foley in 2013 is still relevant today.  Foley points out that only a tiny fraction of the national corn crop is directly used for food for Americans, mainly for high-fructose corn syrup.  A big portion is fed to animals, which we then slaughter and eat.  The fraction of available food calories in feed corn that ends up in the meat and dairy we humans eat is really small. Perhaps the largest single market for corn is a conversion into ethanol. The notion of all the plowing, planting, discing, fertilizing, irrigating, harvesting, storing, and transporting, then converting the corn into alcohol in an energy-intensive, inefficient process, only to burn it in a car engine, never did make sense. It’s now just a way to dispose of the huge excesses of corn produced by farmers who want to get in on free money the government is handing out. It’s no surprise then that in 2019 total corn production in the U.S. increased by 17.5%.   By the way, the folks converting the corn that no one can use into ethanol that can’t rationally be justified as a fuel also receive subsidies for that work since it makes no sense economically. 

What will it take to really change things? Maybe, just maybe, newly elected President Biden will do the right thing and appoint Representative Marcia Fudge as Secretary of Agriculture. She’s shown that she’s ready and able to turn USDA into an effective and socially conscious tool for reform of American agriculture.

Let’s return briefly to Google search. Near the top of the list of the 19.8 million results of the search for “regenerative agriculture” are organizations of all sorts involved in one way or another with agriculture.  Bayer, a corporation at the top of the list, manufactures weedkillers, pesticides and the like. Another, the French company Danone, sells prebiotic yogurts such as Activa, and dairy-free drinks such as soy milk. They must have found their way onto the list via some sort of google algorithm magic.  Neither company has much investment in regenerative ag, though Danone has a few stories to tell. They hardly offset its sorry record as one of the top ten producers globally of packaged water, a global blight in its own right.  I’m left wondering about how profit works its way into decisions about how things pop up in searches. 

The fact that many corporations are feeling their way into regenerative practices, if only by loose association, in an effort to look good could be taken as a sign of progress, I suppose. But those serious about the promise of regenerative agriculture as a suite of disruptive technologies, with the power to improve agriculture’s environmental impact and make a significant contribution to lowering the rate of increase of greenhouse gases, know that the journey is just beginning, and the road ahead will be rough. 

But we needn’t focus only on big ag in our search for promising change. In my next blog, I’ll write about regenerative ag at local levels. That will be more fun and it’s actually quite important.

 

 

Making change is the work of many hands

The large figure below is a product of the Prairie Rivers Network,  an organization of Illinois citizens founded in 1967 to block the plans of the Army Corp of Engineers to build an ill-advised reservoir near Decatur, Illinois. Over years of advocating for environmental causes the organization grew and became part of the Coalition of American Rivers, dedicated to resisting other Corps of Engineers projects throughout the Midwest. Under the leadership of John Marlin, the first paid Executive Director (1973-1983), the Coalition drew people from varied political and social backgrounds to protect rivers from federal water projects that threatened most of the nation’s rivers in the 1960s and ’70s.

Their figure is loaded with information that calls us to pay attention. Let’s start with the statement about nutrient pollution.  Illinois, like all the other midwest prairie states, is heavily into industrial agriculture. Corn and soybean crops dominate the landscape. Which of the crops dominates in a given year is determined by many factors; predominantly weather, market forces, the trade wars, government subsidies, crop insurance.  In any given year, most of the available land is planted in one of the two crops. The processes of plowing, planting, irrigating, fertilizing and keeping the bugs and weeds under control result in enormous runoffs, that flow into small streams, then flow into larger ones, eventually empty into the big rivers and thence into the Gulf of Mexico. That water, further enriched with the runoffs from animal feedlots, is seriously polluted. All along its long journey It infiltrates local aquifers and surface sources for municipal water systems, kills wildlife and--year by year--depletes the originally rich, loamy soil of its organic matter. When it arrives in the Gulf, it creates a huge nutrient-rich dead zone.

Very little of the corn and soybean grown on those Illinois fields goes directly into the food chain. A lot of it goes to feed animals that are converting it into manure and methane gas,  and another large fraction is converted into bioethanol, a transportation fuel. The entire system could not be more cleverly designed to convert enormous quantities of fossil fuels into greenhouse gases, notably  carbon dioxide and methane.  If we were to set out to poison the planet, we’d build something like present-day industrial agriculture as a prime element. 

 Agriculture is estimated to produce somewhere around 14 to 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions globally. That makes it the single largest contributor to global warming.  Even more concerning is the fact that nations around the world seem to be eagerly looking to emulate US agricultural practices. We have a  great challenge before us: to feed a growing global population. It's become evident, though, that we’re going about it in the wrong ways.  Fortunately, there are solutions to the problem.  One of them is indicated at the top right of the figure. Regenerative agriculture practices can reverse the path we’re on. The problem is, what society should do as a matter of great urgency  isn’t consistent with the business plans of corporate agriculture. It will take a lot of hard politicking and good government to make progress in shifting from the wasteful, poisonous farming methods of today to no-till farming, use of cover crops, and more thoughtful management of water systems. 

Cover crops are a big factor in making the system work.  As the large figure at the top shows, there is movement; in Illinois, more than 700,000 acres devoted to corn and soybeans are utilizing cover crops.  Ah, but it’s going too slowly!  We need to get to about 18 million acres. Data from an Illinois EPA analysis indicates that at the current rate of adoption, we’re 200 to 500 years away from where we need to be. Time is running out!  Similar states of affairs are found in the other midwestern states, even in the face of wonderful examples of what can be achieved using regenerative agriculture.  Gabe Brown’s Youtube video talk on his experiences in North Dakota provides an inspiring example of how effective regenerative agriculture can be.  

Five years ago, as part of the Paris Accords, a $100 billion multilateral Green Climate Fund was established within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States committed $3 billion to the initial creation but has to date paid in only $1 billion.  With the Trump administration moving to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement, there is no prospect that the US will pay any of its shortfall, let alone contribute more funds to the cash-strapped fund. These monies are intended to assist with climate adaptation in poor countries.  The goal for the Green Climate Fund was $100 billion per year.  At this point, commitments are falling far short of what was promised. Still, nations are responding, and one can hope that over time the urgency of the situation will impress itself.  

It will take a great deal of hard work and determination to buck the established ways of doing things, and brilliant new science and engineering to create a way forward.  Here are two examples of promising new technologies that could play a role:

• The company Indigo Ag was founded to develop technologies around using microbes living within a plant to help plants protect themselves from insects, disease, and drought. That description does not do justice, however, to the range of the company's activities, which stretch across virtually all aspects of the agricultural enterprise. They are off to a fast start and have operations running in many parts of the globe.  The CNBC interview with CEO David Perry gives an idea of the breadth of their vision.  They are moving toward a radical disruption of modern agricultural practices for producing the major grains that feed the world.

• The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently announced additional support for a project at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign entitled Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency (RIPE). A key aim of the RIPE project is to provide farmers, particularly those in some of the world’s poorest countries, with seed that will yield substantially more without requiring more inputs. Scientists working in RIPE take advantage of a long history of scientific research, coupled with the latest discoveries in plant biology, to tweak photosynthesis to produce improvements. According to the project director, Professor Stephen Long, seen here with co-Director Donald Ort,
  

  

  “Our models predict that by combining several strategies we could achieve a 50 percent yield increase, which will go a long way to meeting the demands of this century.”  The RIPE project has a long way to go before it can be transferred to food crops, tested for safety and widely deployed on a global scale.  The scientists are all too well aware that they are racing against the increasing effects of climate change. Government needs to increase its support of this and other promising research efforts.  

It's inspiring to see that there's a kind of two-pronged system at work. The Prairie Rivers Network advocates at the local level for sustainable agricultural practices, lobbying legislators, educating in the school systems and in the public sphere generally about what is at stake, and what individuals can do to build support for effective legislation. Those folks are living in the same community as the researchers at the University of Illinois engaged in world-class research with the aim of finding technological solutions.  And the people at Indigo Ag are engaged in developing commercially successful answers that will be applicable globally.

So what can you and I do?  We can read and learn; use the Internet to ask questions and find answers; find the phone numbers and e-mail addresses of state and federal legislators and make calls; lobby regulatory agencies when we see examples of counter-productive cancellation or relaxation of effective rules ( In this regards, try following Huffpost Agriculture for a daily feed that can be interesting and surprising).  What we mustn't do is give up, or get too busy with other things.

It's getting later, day by day

Oh, Boy! What a Saturday morning this is turning out to be. I recently received a letter informing me that I’ve been selected to receive a nice recognition, to be announced in a couple of months. I thought of the letter after I’d been up for a while this morning, and it made me feel good. But a bit later I found that my printer was malfunctioning; it seems unable to print in simple black, though the cartridge is relatively new and properly HP-certified. OK, it's a short-term problem, I’m sure I can fix it. Little ups and downs such as these are not important in themselves, but they can get in the way of addressing larger concerns.

Such as flooding.  In America's heartland.

So, on to the hard stuff.

As I began looking through the day’s feeds, many having to do with climate change in one way or another, one of the first papers I ran across is a link to a paper by Daniel Rothman of MIT in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Rothman is Co-Director of the Lorenz Center in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. We all know that the oceans are undergoing changes in temperate and acidity at unprecedented rates. If today’s human-induced emissions cross certain thresholds, as Rothman predicts they soon will, many marine ecosystems are likely to go extinct. The consequences may be just as severe as the Earth experienced during previous mass extinctions. We tend to lose track of the fact that 71 percent of the planet’s surface is covered with water. We should care about what goes on in those deeps.


 On the general subject of the oceanic environment, how about the runaway increases in Sargassum seaweed blooms along the coasts in Florida, the Caribbean and Mexico? The stuff stinks to high heaven and accumulates almost faster than it can be carted off. Check out the photo of a formerly pristine white sand beach in Cancun.   A likely driver of this massive new intrusion is an increase in nutrients flowing from the Amazon into the South Atlantic because more and more land in the Amazon is being converted to agriculture, with an attendant overuse of fertilizers. So we lose the carbon-sequestering power of the rainforest and gain a wholly new source of pollution. As they say, what goes around comes around…

My next read was a paper entitled "Sleepwalking Into Certan Catastrophe, or Awakening via Agroecology", by Steve McFadden. He referred to a UN report on the devastating consequences climate change could have for a large fraction of the world’s population. The looming threat of massive food shortages brought on by changing patterns of rainfall and temperatures all over the planet has food scientists thinking about agroecology, a stabilizing set of principles and practices for clean, just, and sustainable farms and food. Transformation of agriculture through agroecological techniques and principles could have profoundly beneficial impacts on land, workers, and food. But how do we get to actually making changes, to progressing beyond talking about what might be possible, to actually making the necessary moves? In the short term, large corporations such as BASF, Bayer, 3M, DowDupont, Archer Daniels Midland, Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods, Exxon, Chevron and many more stand to lose a great deal in making many of the needed changes. Corporations hold great political power in the global economy. It will be difficult to constrain them from using it to maintain their short-term business models. If they had wise, informed models that look ahead, the way forward might come to light. An article not long ago in Bloomberg Business News about Tom Hayes, the new CEO of Tyson Foods gives hope that enlightened leadership can be found in the corporate world, but is there enough of it?

The obstacles to change extend beyond just giant corporations. How many owners of large tracts of farmland who farm using monocropping methods, with high tillage and heavy reliance on fertilizers and pesticides are prepared to change from the practices that have made them rich? The feeds I read from the world of agriculture have a lot to do with the politics of maintaining government bailouts in the wake of massive flooding, wholesale losses of animals from hurricanes and tropical storms. Extreme weather events of the past few years don’t seem to have brought about an acknowledgment that the current models of industrialized farming must change. The solution could lie in employing regenerative agriculture. True, the ag feeds are sprinkled here and there with mentions of cover crops, low-till and no-till, permaculture and so on. Farmers such as Gabe Brown, who has successfully used regenerative agricultural practices for many years have garnered a lot of deserved attention. But climate change is coming fast, and moves to confront the changes afoot have been pitifully small in relation to the continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

 In addition to the problems associated with plant agriculture, modern methods of raising animals for food, referred to as Concentrated Farm Animal Operations, CFAOs, are a great bundle of harmful effects on land and water, to say nothing of spoilage of the environment for anyone unfortunate enough to live in the vicinity of a CFAO. Instead of recognizing the negative impacts of these operations and enacting tough laws to curtail their operations, state legislators in many farm states are enacting barriers to law suits from affected neighbors. And by the way, the resistance to effective change comes from both sides of the political divide. House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) has resisted the progressive push for dramatic action on climate change, reflecting the industry's aversion to change and its wariness of the climate movement. "I think a lot of them would like us to quit farming," Peterson told POLITICO in January. 'Peterson the unimaginative farmer' apparently has an edge over 'Peterson the people’s servant'.

Those who live citified lives can easily be unaware of the pollution of rivers and underground water resources resulting from CFAO operations; of a steady erosion of soil quality that comes with frequent tilling, eventually leaving land devoid of native soil organic matter, no longer capable of supporting sustainable food production; of deforestation operations that permanently strip out whole regions of plants that were soaking up CO2 and thus serving to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. They may not think of the huge quantities of CO2 that result from manufacturing fertilizers. Nor are they likely to dwell upon the folly of planting, harvesting and processing vast quantities of corn to produce ethanol as a gasoline additive. Ethanol is blended with petroleum gasoline in America in order to meet a federal government mandate known as the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and its updated version, RFS2. The original rationale was the desire to support U.S. agriculture. The RFS currently requires that about 10 percent of all gas-engine fuel sold in the United States be ethanol. There is virtually nothing left of the original rationale other than making some rich farm landowners even richer.

These examples call attention to the fact that agriculture is a leading source of greenhouse gas emissions and the cause of much ecological damage. And because of the slow pace at which this realization is penetrating into the public consciousness, it seems unlikely that reforms will come on a sufficiently broad and timely scale. I’ve frequently called attention to the great book Drawdown, which spells out a list of 80 or more feasible steps that could be enacted on a sufficiently large scale to go far toward mitigating climate change. Agriculture is at the heart of many of the most important ones. We need to find ways to make change happen. The alternative is described in David Wallace-Wells’s book, The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming. Check out this arresting interview with him.

The rapid-fire announcements of plans to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 are exemplary of an unfortunate expectation that new technologies will be enough to save us from global warming. Any realistic analysis leads to the conclusion that it will take a lot more than achieving net-zero emissions. It will require revolutionary new approaches to using the planet’s landmass to produce food and serve as a sink for CO2 by revitalizing currently depleted and desertified land. We will have to massively reduce global consumption of animals as a food source, learn to budget the ever more limited freshwater resources—and so much more. Small steps are being taken in the developed nations, but it’s a constant battle to educate the public and prevail politically against those who refuse to surrender their short-term interests. On this particular morning, it’s not easy to be optimistic.

Where is agriculture headed?

You’d have to be really out of touch not to have heard of the microbiome, the community of microorganisms that share our body space.  The microbiome is composed of a very large number of microbial species, the vast majority of which live in our digestive systems.  In recent times we’ve come to appreciate the importance of these little fellows to our well-being. We’ve learned to pay attention to them, to feed them good stuff, such as prebiotics and yogurts. We’ve come to understand that the relationship of diet to wellness lies in the interaction of the microbiome with everything we consume.

It occurred to me recently that the human-microbiome relationship is similar to that between plants and the soil in which they grow.  The quality of soil from the standpoint of its capacity to sustain plant life very much depends on what’s in it.  Healthy soil isn’t just dirt—it contains a complex system of interconnected soil organisms that are essential to the capacity of soil to function as a home for plants, just as our intestinal microbiome is essential to our capacity to ingest food in maintaining whole body health. Soil organisms assist with the digestion of needed nutrients for a plant, keep nutrients in place, provide structural support and water management, and many other functions.

Industrial agriculture has been premised on the notion that we humans can sustainably provide just about everything a crop plant needs. In their model, it’s not necessary to preserve an abundant, deeply rooted community of diverse organisms that support the growing of food crops.  Industrial agriculture works on the assumption that it’s OK to continually plow up the soil, virtually stripping it of life other than the annual plantings.  Thus, the soil of industrially farmed land lacks organisms that exude sticky carbon substances that hold soil particles together, imparting to healthy soil a crumbly texture.  The structure of healthy soil has pore sizes that allow it to drain when it’s wet, and store water that would otherwise run off in heavy rains. The pores also bring air to the roots. Healthy soil is a complex ecosystem, an interconnected web of organisms and their physical environment.  

By contrast, industrial agriculture has made the soil into a lifeless structure that merely holds the plants. Big agribusiness supplies all the heavy machinery needed to plow and weed the fields, and of course, major nutrients for the plants, pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified seeds, designed to compensate for the lack of a diverse and richly varied soil, with its abundant population of insects, fungi and the like that serve to protect plants.

Most farming operations in the US today buy into the framework supplied by industrial agriculture. There is a never-ending succession of fixes to invasions of insects, infestations of infections, massive runoffs and crop losses from flooding in heavy rains, and losses in dry spells because the soil has no capacity to retain water. The so-called green revolution has succeeded only by virtue of robbing the land of riches that must be preserved if agriculture is to be sustainable. 

Back in the 1960s, Kansas farmers found that a huge aquifer lay beneath the land they were farming. The Ogallala, located beneath the Great Plains in the United States, is, or was, one of the world’s largest aquifers.  It underlies an area of approximately 174,000 sq mi in portions of eight states: South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas. Anyone who has flown over the plains states in years past is familiar with the sight of center-pivot irrigators — the rigs that created circles of lush cropland by pumping water from the Ogallala onto the fields. Today, in many parts of the Great Plains those rigs are no longer running. They remain as mute reminders that plundering the world’s natural resources for short-term gain is ultimately a loser’s game. In many parts of the Ogallala aquifer, the water levels have fallen so far that it is no longer feasible to pump from it.  The irony is that all that water would not have been needed if the land been farmed regeneratively.

Meanwhile, in March of this year, the state of Nebraska was in a state of emergency due to heavy rainfall. A massive so-called "bomb cyclone" battered the central United States with heavy snow, howling winds and several tornadoes. Flooding forced evacuations in adjoining states as well. Conventional industrial agriculture leaves fields prone to massive runoffs following heavy rainstorms, with the result that stormwater washes fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, and animal waste off the farmland (and, incidentally, off lawns and golf courses). Aside from the ruinous loss of crops, runoff carries pollutants into lakes and rivers used for drinking water supplies. When the runoff ends up in reservoirs, it promotes algal blooms which can become toxic. 

But it doesn’t need to be the way the agribusiness giants would have it.  We know that the plants and soils of a natural prairie absorb much, if not all, of the rain during a thunderstorm. Why can’t agricultural practices build on what we know works in nature?  It may seem counter-intuitive to look to pre-industrial practices, but it’s nothing of the kind, as has been demonstrated all over the world. I’ll mention here just a few examples. They all fit under the general heading of regenerative agriculture.

I recently read a fine book, Call of the Reed Warbler, by Charles Massy.  The author is Australian, with a long career in dealing with the tough challenges that Australia presents for conventional agriculture.  When Europeans came to settle, they brought with them strong opinions on how to farm successfully.   But most of Australia presented conditions they didn’t know how to deal with, particularly in the low amounts of rainfall, as well as its erratic nature, and soil types that they failed to understand.  Many attempts to farm ended in failures and abandonment of the land. But a few pioneers went against the conventional wisdom regarding water management. They found ways to conserve water and protect the soil with cover crops, proper rotations of grazing pastures and other methods.

Massy also refers to the work of pioneers in other places, especially Africa, where desertification has left so much land unproductive.  Allan Savory is one of the great pioneers in regenerative agriculture.  A native of Zimbabwe, he has concentrated his efforts in the restoration of land that has been desertified over time through human activities. His aim is to convert such lands to productive grassland through managing the land in concert with the grazing of livestock. His work is controversial in some circles, in part, I think because many would like to see less use of animals in human diets.  But for many of the people of Africa whose livelihood and diet have for generations depended on grazing animals, Savory’s methods, referred to as holistic management, have resulted in greening of huge tracts of formerly unproductive land.  Holistic management is far less of a threat to global warming than the industrial model of producing meat. The lush grasslands soak up CO₂, thus helping to draw down the levels of the most important contributor to global warming. I recommend that you watch Savory’s TED presentation.  As TED's founder, Chris Anderson commented, it’s astonishing.

I’m a vegetarian, and I’ve long believed that an important step we could take to ward off global warming would be to shift the human diet from animal-based to plant-based.  I'm convinced that a plant-based diet is superior from a health perspective, but Savory has shown that warding off global warming does not require that we entirely abandon eating meats.  We must, however, cease industrial meat production, which comes at a high cost to our health and the quality of the environment. As recounted in The Guardian in 2017, in America food animal production has caused massive pollution of water.  Vast areas in the Gulf of Mexico, have turned into dead zones because of pollution flowing into the Mississippi River and thence into the gulf.  Industrial pig farming is a particularly egregious form of CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation).  CAFOs store swine waste in giant vats referred to as lagoons, which often contain pathogens—salmonella, antibiotics and antimicrobials that have been fed to the animals—as well as nutrient pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus. If the water from these lagoons leaches out into the soil and trickles down into the water table beneath, the surrounding communities suffer. Conditions have grown worse as climate change has brought on powerful storms that cause flooding of lagoons, and hurricanes that can wipe out the lagoons. There is really no satisfactory solution to the environmental deterioration caused by these industrial-scale operations that the corporations would be willing to invest in. Smithfield Foods, a huge corporation that operates pig farms in North Carolina has been cited numerous times for creating living conditions unbearable for anyone living anywhere near one of their operations.  The injurious effects on affected communities are a form of environmental injustice—most of the people affected have no relationship with the corporations.  But “big ag” is very big business indeed; it has tremendous pull with state and federal legislators. The Center for American Progress recently floated a novel idea to counter the effects of a rapidly consolidating agriculture industry: an independent task force at USDA charged with maintaining competitive markets and protecting farmers from the harms of consolidation. In a related vein, a bill from Sen. Cory Booker and Rep. Mark Pocan would temporarily ban future ag mergers while Congress rewrites antitrust laws to strengthen enforcement against anti-competitive deals.

Farmer Gabe Brown provides another example of how regenerative agriculture can rewrite the rules for ecologically and economically successful farming. Brown and his family have employed regenerative agricultural practices on several thousand acres in North Dakota to produce healthy and highly productive soil without the need for fertilization, pesticides or herbicides. Their soil soaks up tremendous amounts of CO₂, holds it long-term, and absorbs large quantities of rainfall without runoff. To learn more about how Gabe does it, and the background science, check out this video. Gabe is a really entertaining guy!  I was impressed with the sense of wholeness in the efforts around the globe to restore soils to their legacy conditions.  Gabe rotates animals on his holdings in a similar way to Allen Savory.  Half a world apart and with vastly different cultural underpinnings these two and many others are treading on common ground—healthy soil.

After learning about the work of these pioneers, I’m left feeling that I need to investigate further.  I don’t see how the use of grazing animals on farmland can, or even should be, scaled to the production of food across large areas such as America’s plains states. It seems clear that benefits accrue from the grazing.  There should be ways to simulate the beneficial effects of grazing animals on large tracts of croplands. In any case, it's certainly past time for industrial agriculture to adopt new practices if we’re to save the planet from environmental degradation and global warming while providing food for a rising global population.