Brian Henderson gives his take of the debate at Go Falkland

Moving to a two-day format in this its second year, there was an embarrassment of riches at GO Falkland as far as the discussions and seminars were concerned, with four tents hosting almost back-to-back presentations across both days.

These tent talks attracted speakers and displays from all walks of society – ranging from practising farmers through to some of the leading voices at the country’s top research institutes, to social scientists and reformers all the way to the performing arts.

And while it might be fair to say that councillors and other local authority representatives, quango officials, lobbying groups, scientists from various research bodies and the already converted vastly outnumbered what you might term the mainstream farming crowd, there were definite signs of grassroots interest from producers keen to judge what way the wind might be blowing, given the Scottish Government’s signalling that future support will be aimed at making the country ‘a world leader’ in regenerative farming.

MORE ARABLE NEWS | Egyptian consumers turn to potatoes as food inflations bites

MORE ARABLE NEWS | Solutions for cabbage stem flea beetle issues

Modesty on display

For a movement, the regenerative scene is a bit of an interesting one, in Scotland at least. For at this event, far from any of those already practising the approach telling anyone what they should be doing, there was a huge degree of modesty on display – more of ‘I tried this and it worked for me, maybe you should try something too and see what works on your farm’.

With so many from outside the hardcore farming fraternity present at the event, it was quite interesting to see ourselves through the eyes of others, especially as questions came in from the floor.

The use of glyphosate seemed to be one of the major concerns to come from several quarters – and while you might question if a degree of misinformation was doing the rounds with claims that the use of glyphosate was the death knell for earthworms – the distrust of big agri-chem corporations which is out there was pretty clear.

A necessary evil

And while the reliance on the use of the world’s most widely used herbicide might be viewed as a bit of an Achilles’ heel for regenerative farming where it often plays a key role in facilitating the adoption of the no-till practices, it was admitted that its use was probably a ‘necessary evil’. It was pointed out that a one litre per hectare spray was probably less environmentally damaging than moving several thousand tonnes of top soil several inches to the left in order to do the same job.

But, as an aside, a scientific paper was published last week which questioned if the levels of glyphosate found in the vast majority of European rivers actually come from farms. And instead it pointed the finger at chemicals which are widely present in laundry detergents being much more likely to be the source of the traces found in many of our waterways.

The researchers’ hypothesis is that glyphosate is a transformation product of the amino polyphosphonates present in detergents created in sewage and water treatment plants, a fact which would explain not only why levels in waterways remain fairly constant throughout the year and don’t reflect the usage patterns of the pesticide, but also the fact that herbicide reduction strategies haven’t been solving the problem.

Commodities not food

However, the use of glyphosate wasn’t the only farming practice to come in for a bit of a bashing as it was asserted that recent farm support systems have acted as an incentive for farmers to grow commodities, not food.

And, given the fact that the same view has been raised elsewhere recently it was interesting to hear the continued direction of state funding towards the growing of crops such as those used for distilling and brewing being called into question at one of the tent talks.

Speaking at the event, Johnnie Balfour, managing partner at Balbirnie Estates and chair of Pastures for Life, said that Scotland majored in the production of the feedstock for the alcohol industry with a country-wide emphasis on growing malting barley and wheat for distilling.

He said that while we might also produce some potatoes, carrots, lamb and beef, an enormous proportion of what the country produces is turned into alcohol. Commenting on the changes which would be needed to meet the requirements of the Scottish Government’s Good Food Nation plan, he added: “What we need is for farmers to start making decisions about the management of their land – and to grow more food.”

Absolutely insane

At another of the Fife event’s discussions, the industry’s apparent willingness to do the heavy lifting on carbon sequestration ‘for free’ was termed absolutely insane.

Robert Ramsay, director at precision farming specialist SoilEssentials, said that the question of who should pay for sequestering carbon was a valid one – but as releasing CO2 into the air had to be avoided and tying it up in the oceans led to the damaging acidification of the seas, tying it back into the soil was one of the only truly acceptable means of reducing the concentration of this harmful gas in the atmosphere. Yet no-one in the farming world was getting paid for putting it there.

He said that while multinationals were putting a tiny amount into encouraging the reduction of emissions, if a more transparent and straightforward way was established to pay farmers to sequester CO2 then it wouldn’t take the industry long to figure out the best way of so doing.

However, with a firm emphasis being placed on local action and community involvement, the GO Falkland event celebrated and promoted an approach which sees the focus of the regenerative movement placed on small producers and family farms.

Stark contrast

But this approach was in stark contrast to developments taking place elsewhere in the regenerative farming world.

In the very same week, it was announced that one of the world’s largest multinational food conglomerates, Pepsico, had signed up to a long-term deal with Europe’s biggest fertiliser producer, Yara, which would effectively corner much of the world’s supply of so-called ‘green fertiliser’.

Pepsico – which as well as its popular fizzy drink also sells a wide range of potato and oat-based food products – said that, under the deal, Yara will deliver 165,000 tonnes of what is claimed to be greener fertiliser to it by 2030.

“These fertilisers will be mostly Yara Climate Choice fertilisers which include low-carbon footprint fertilisers produced from either renewable ammonia or low-carbon ammonia via carbon capture and storage currently under construction,” said the food giant.

But while any move towards reducing emissions has to be welcomed, it has to be recognised that it might not be driven purely by altruistic motives. The new regulations on Scope 3 emissions which will soon come into force require big companies to account for greenhouse gas emissions further up and down their supply chains. And, with fertiliser production – and its use – accounting for a considerable proportion of the overall carbon footprint of the raw materials for the food we eat, major manufacturers and retailers will need to act on this front.

However, I can’t help but feel that the deal is unlikely to be particularly attractive to the 1,000 or so producers across Europe who will use the fertilisers. And not only are these producers likely to be tied to buying their fertiliser from this source but they will also commit to providing important crop and soil data to monitor progress towards net zero.

This all smacks more than a bit of the model which has become widespread in US where farmers find themselves tied not only to selling their produce to a particular outlet, but also to purchasing the majority of their inputs from the same source.

Burden of risks

It’s not too hard to imagine that this sort of arrangement is one which eats into the independence of farming businesses while still leaving farmers to shoulder the burden of the risks associated with growing the crops – such as disease, extreme weather events, and often the huge fluctuations in increasingly volatile markets as well.

So maybe it’s time for the Scottish Government to decide which of the two faces of regenerative farming they want to prevail – and act accordingly.