Letters to the editor

Firstly, what is regenerative farming?

The phrase is an umbrella term for a range of farming practices aimed at increasing on-farm biodiversity, improving soil health, increasing water retention, and creating resilience to climate change.

This often includes practices such as holistic grazing management, agroforestry, mixed cover-cropping, polycultures, no-till farming and the reduction of synthetic fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides.

The reluctance of some farmers to adopt the term is not due to the fact that regenerative farming as a concept doesn't have merit. It most certainly does. Farming and agriculture thrive on regeneration, with sustainability being precisely what farmers rely on for their financial futures.

But the concept of regenerative farming can be tricky in that there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach.

What works for your neighbour or a farm in New Zealand might not be what works for you. Instead, some farmers are adopting the title of "environmentally adaptive", rather than regenerative.

The term environmentally adaptive implies that you give the land precisely what it needs when it needs it.

It's a term that recognises the unique skills farmers possess in knowing the land they work on and the climate they operate in, and making the best decisions for their situation on a day-to-day basis. Adapting to their soil type, rainfall, elevation, temperature variation and scale of operation are some of the concepts environmentally adaptive farmers employ.

Rotational grazing remains a key practice, but the length of grazing and resting periods are tailored to suit the environment of the farmer. Environmentally adaptive farming is therefore more about being aware of your landscape and its diversity.

LUCY SHERWOOD, Mobble head of marketing and communications.

It is understandable that Lorraine Gordon wants to lobby for lots of grants for her university (sponsored content, "Repairing soil relationships", The Land, June 24, p39).

But why does she feel the need to denigrate the scientists and farmers who have already done the research and feed the country?

She promises a new type of jargon rich research of "bottom-up". What does that mean ?

She promises to fill a 'glaring gap' in knowledge. Perhaps that gap is in her own understanding of the richness of Australia agricultural research.

PETER MARSHALL, Braidwood.

Carbon neutrality is an attack on the family farm, and farmer representation organisations do not care. Australian agriculture will operate, as it has done for many generations with rising atmospheric CO2 levels, that is the least of our worries.

The current atmospheric level is just over 400ppm, which is miniscule but plays an important function by allowing life on earth. Believing that CO2 is the adjustable control knob for the climate ignores the complex effects that the sun, oceans, clouds and volcanos have on climate and weather. Climate activists never complain about water vapor which is the most abundant and influential greenhouse gas.

I hope the Nationals can rescue agriculture from the unnecessary and draconian climate policies of the National Farmers Federation (NFF) which read like a proforma of climate activist demands.

The NFF's position on climate change is hardly surprising given it has subcontracted the development of its climate policy to a group of farmers wanting action on climate change. This group does not represent the millions of tonnes of grain, wool and meat that is produced in Australia using mainstream practices. It represents the fringe of society that wants coal exports and traditional low-cost power generation banned.

You cannot be a bonified farmer and be fearful of CO2 and variable weather. I often hear mainstream farmers ask "what is the position of the state farming organisations in Australia on climate change?" Occasionally the media even try to tease this out.

The responses resemble an assortment of sitting on the fence platitudes. I sense that telling the truth about how their respective membership use fossil fuels to propel innovation and productivity and their standard of living is just too inconvenient and politically incorrect.

It's ironic and sad that the revenue that provides the life blood of these organisations has been derived from the use of fossil fuels and all the associated derivates. Yet these organisations are quietly chopping off the hands that feed them.

The farmers of this great agrarian country are on their own and without some level of pushback will be encapsulated in the anti-production polices of the Canberra Bubble that filter through the Green/Labor/Liberal Parties. Putting aside productive land will never satisfy those that are opposed to our way of life, it will just embolden them to push us even harder.

My hope is that Barnaby Joyce will expose farmer representation organisations by drawing them out of the backrooms and place them under a transparent spotlight. The Nationals need to rule out carbon neutrality now and forever. The consequences of bureaucratic controls over agriculture will simply erode the generational gains.

Taking the middle road because they want to be a good coalition partner will feed agriculture to the wolves. Agriculture will resemble a socialist's paradise where we are ordered to farm carbon at whatever the cost.

JOHN SNOOKE, Cunderdin, WA.

Congratulations to Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley on her efforts to protect our precious koalas, which she announced this past week.

I agree that we should consider whether the threatened species status of our koalas should be raised from 'vulnerable' to 'endangered', as announced by Ms Ley.

Likewise, I commend her efforts to protect the Great Barrier Reef, which is another Australian icon.

However, there is one 'threatened species' under Ms Ley's watch which continues to get little or no attention.

I'm talking about the irrigation farmers, in particular those who frequent the lands of the mid-Murray region in southern NSW.

Believe it or not, the federal representative in Canberra for this 'threatened species' is none other than the federal Environment Minister.

So I would like to ask: Why isn't she putting more effort into their protection, instead of the feel-good koalas and reef?

Don't get me wrong, I fully support all efforts that protect Australia's iconic animals and environments.

However, I also see human beings who have worked their land for generations, putting food on the table across our nation, become vulnerable because there is a distinct lack of government support.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan, as the centre-piece of the government's water policy, is an unmitigated disaster, yet neither Ms Ley or her colleagues have the political courage to address it.

As a consequence we have the livelihoods of farmers threatened, as is their ability to produce the staple foods that we rely on.

At the same time we have significant environmental damage caused by unnatural and damaging river flows.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Ms Ley made a public statement (and backed it up with action) to indicate her government was going to do something to protect both the farmers and the environment that the Basin Plan is ruining.

ANDREW HATELEY, Finley.