Columnists, including leaders in
agriculture in the Philippines and abroad, mostly talk about Sustainable
Agriculture (SA) – but seldom if ever talk about Regenerative Agriculture (RA).
Simply put, “sustainable” means “can be maintained” while “regenerative” means
“can reproduce the original.” 2 distinct un/natural propositions.
I subscribe to RA. I note that RA
takes the original as the “natural fertility of the soil” that which is
sufficient in itself, while CA takes the original as the “current
fertility of the soil” that which needs adding to every cropping season.
When you irrigate your rice crop,
that is Sustainable Agriculture – can be done and redone. When you instead
build-into the soil a natural waterholder in the form of decaying organic
matter, that is Regenerative Agriculture!
In my title I ask: “Is Sustainable Regenerative, Or Is Regenerative Sustainable?” The fields they are differently applied on may look
alike, but they definitely differ in meaning:
Sustainable – maintained with addition of source/s of richness.
Regenerative – maintains itself, as
it can reproduce its own kind/s of richness.
We must also talk
about biodiversity. As I
understand, Sustainable Agriculture
(SA) measures sustainability more as “harvests maintained” or even improved – Regenerative Agriculture (RA) measures
sustainability more as “species maintained” along with their productivities.
Above – I think that the best examples of SA in my
country the Philippines are the mountainsides of Benguet and Ifugao with rice
terraces. If those rice terraces were instead treated and maintained as
Regenerative instead of simply Sustainable, we Filipinos would revolutionize
the whole world of agriculture with examples of RA in the mountainsides, and
adorable at that! That would then radicalize agriculture as well as tourism!
Not only that. SA
is the cause of so much trouble in farming because of those aggie chemicals
when used generate so much greenhouse gases (GHGs) as they are applied! With
RA, there would be zero GHGs and that would contribute much to the reduction of
the havocs created by chemical agriculture!
In 2020, I wrote
(“PH School & Home Gardens – How Good Are They? ComDev Vs DevCom Views,” The Editor In Chief, blogspot.com):
…Both fall short of their avowed ultimate goal of
sustainable development, which has 4 aspects: (1) technical feasibility (2)
economic viability, (3) environmental soundness, and (4) social acceptability.
Even gardens, in
school or at home, should be part of any overall campaign for
regeneratability. And that means
sustainable agriculture is out of the question anywhere!
Earth.org says
there are “5 Challenges The Agricultural Sector Faces And What We Can Do About
It” (earth.org): (1) Climate
Change, (2) Insufficient agricultural land, (3) growing population, (4)
biodiversity loss, and (5) low investment in agriculture.
Chemical Agriculture exacerbates
Climate Change while Regenerative
Agriculture reduces it – I am happy with that!@517
No comments:
Post a Comment