I read this twice because the title stopped me in my tracks.
“regenerative agriculture accepts pesticides and this is good” is a big claim, and it risks turning regen into a vague corporate badge rather than a set of practices with clear intent and measurable outcomes.
Pesticides, herbicides and synthetic fertilisers are largely tools designed to keep high yields coming from simplified systems and exhausted soils.
Regenerative, as many of us understand and practise it, is about rebuilding soil function and biodiversity so the system needs fewer of those inputs over time, not normalising them as a feature. If chemicals are still being used, the honest question is whether they are genuinely transitional and reducing year on year, or whether “regen” is being used to rebrand business as usual.
It’s also worth saying that regen is not yet properly regulated, which makes language important.
If we let “regen” mean anything, it will end up meaning nothing.
For me, regen is integrated livestock, diverse rotations, agroforestry, high welfare, living roots, minimal disturbance, and moving away from chemical dependency, not defending it.
Just spin and rubbish. There is this thing called "science" which we have used over the years to discover that pesticides are harmful. Retired sustainable farmer.
This A.I. generated post is full of lies, gaslighting tactics and corporate propaganda.
The vague statements about pesticides increasing yield are a fallacy, real regenerative ag increases both yield and nutritional content of food, herbicides and pesticides poison both humans and ecology.
I out yield all my conventional neighbors in EVERYTHING but corn. Not relevant considering ethonal is a complete lie. On over 1200 certified organic acres. You Sir, short on knowledge and long on bullshit.
I read this twice because the title stopped me in my tracks.
“regenerative agriculture accepts pesticides and this is good” is a big claim, and it risks turning regen into a vague corporate badge rather than a set of practices with clear intent and measurable outcomes.
Pesticides, herbicides and synthetic fertilisers are largely tools designed to keep high yields coming from simplified systems and exhausted soils.
Regenerative, as many of us understand and practise it, is about rebuilding soil function and biodiversity so the system needs fewer of those inputs over time, not normalising them as a feature. If chemicals are still being used, the honest question is whether they are genuinely transitional and reducing year on year, or whether “regen” is being used to rebrand business as usual.
It’s also worth saying that regen is not yet properly regulated, which makes language important.
If we let “regen” mean anything, it will end up meaning nothing.
For me, regen is integrated livestock, diverse rotations, agroforestry, high welfare, living roots, minimal disturbance, and moving away from chemical dependency, not defending it.
Just spin and rubbish. There is this thing called "science" which we have used over the years to discover that pesticides are harmful. Retired sustainable farmer.
What a load of big ag shill nonsense.
This A.I. generated post is full of lies, gaslighting tactics and corporate propaganda.
The vague statements about pesticides increasing yield are a fallacy, real regenerative ag increases both yield and nutritional content of food, herbicides and pesticides poison both humans and ecology.
For some historical context and hard facts, read:
https://open.substack.com/pub/gavinmounsey/p/the-history-of-round-up-and-pathways
Thanks for the kind words
Please watch out for the door 🚪 on your way out 😄 🤣 ba-dum-tish
Bs
I out yield all my conventional neighbors in EVERYTHING but corn. Not relevant considering ethonal is a complete lie. On over 1200 certified organic acres. You Sir, short on knowledge and long on bullshit.