Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Stefano Creatini"
channel.
-
19
-
@christinebottaro9017 This farmer got the land in CO for a very good price because the water situation was dire, it was sold as dryland (so incompetent handling got him a bargain, the land and water situation is not bad, it was just badly managed) - in such cases Keyline is not enough, and it also reuqires a terrain where he can plough.
The trenches can hold MORE water in a downpour (he excavates them - which btw also increases the surface for growth) and the water infiltration is / was not good (compacted clay) so Keyline likely would not have been enough even IF he could have used the plough (there are special attachments to get over obstacles if he has rocks etc on the terrain but they are expensive.
All in all - it worked well for him, he is in his fourth season and sold out on beef. Swales are the more costly (money, time) investment but also the longterm solution. And unlike Keyline ploughing he does not have to repeat a process.
Swales are also tree growing systems - his land needs protection from wind (probably also colder in winter, that is not good for the trees, and the wind break also helps in spring, and cooler during the nights). Trees provide shade in summer, fodder, maybe honey, firewood, and timber.
As his property needs trees (more than other cattle ranches) swales are a tool to be seriously considered.
They also create somewhat unequal zones (with more or less soakage). That is also a desired effect because more micro zones means more borders where the zones overlapp and meet and there the magic happens: Zones that are a little drier, a little wetter, concentrating the scarce water in some areas so he jumpstarts the trees WHILE the water situation still improves. that speeds up getting harvests from the trees (grass might just grow a little slowlier, but it is important that the trees grow well right from the beginning, then they can have the first fruits after a few years.
More micro zones means more borders and border zones show high productivity.
He got his permaculture training in Haiwai.
Volcanic soil that is good but does not hold water that well, slope and likely torrential and inequal rainfall. Which is another scenario where swales shine. So he likely had experience in the subtropical climate, and was well able to translate that to a much drier property.
He seems to have his act together, so we can assume he also planned the swales for his property. Did the math, and knew what he was doing.
3
-
@Cederchopper45 he sells the meat directly (I assume farmers market and to restaurants, or consumers that get meat at the farm). Therefore he gets higher revenue, and he does not have so many animals that marketing the beef would be a burden. It is easier for a small operation to find enough buyers. The more you have, the more you must sell and then you are at the mercy of large buyers, will get mass prices, and no concessions for quality will be made.
I guess if he needs information he gets it online, no time for university. The methods of regenerative farming and permaculture were NOT tested and invented at universities. They are just catching up with what people on the ground figured out.
The farm was sold as dryland which means it was affordable - and his costs of production are lower (how much he must pay down for a loan). And there is a chance the person(s) running it before, did it according to "standard" practices. The interviewer (Stefano) also mentioned in the comment section that the land of the neighbours was dry (although it is not shown), so he had improved the water situation already - and he is in his fourth year. It will get better, and if they ever get a torrential rain, he will not lose a drop. - He is doing fine, just fine.
One way to make profit is to reduce the costs of production.
Obviously the Galloways taste good if older and only finished on grass. As corn is expensive (and might become even more expensive in 2021) the less productive breed that can cope well with grass only will give him better profits. As long as he has water, he is good.
And he is not dependent on a middle man.
The people that are disappointed at the sale have not yet figured out that they too should sell directly to avoid the price pressure on mass product.
3
-
1
-
1
-
@Random-pz7po Retail & restaurant chains, farmers and consumers have a cycle of demanding, marketing and delivering cheap food. Add the producer if huge machines, of herbicides, nitorgen fertilizer, GMO seeds, etc. - government does not have a direct influence. I know it is popular to blame government, but in that case it is the wonders of the "market" and of "capitalism" at play. (No free market because they do not pay for the damage that they cause).
Now governments in all rich nations have shaped agriculture after WW2 to be larger, industrialized, and producing cheap food. And if there were subsidies it also propped up the large farms that produce with a lot of chemicals, machines and produce cheaply.
but no one keeps consumers, or Walmart or McDonalds or the farmers from demanding change. Because - the wonders of capitalism - that is still very profitable for those that run the large companies, and there are some big farms that either do well or know how to extract the subsidies. Sugar in Florida ! Or corn that is used for ethanol, where more energy is needed than you can get out of the plant.
The current modeal: a cheap standardized product sold / used by very few chains. Many small farms selling locally ? It would be better for soil and water, a lot of people would make a decent income in the rural areas.
But will someone think of the shareholdders that are left out in that scenario ! ?
Or the profits of Bayer or Monsanto ? Also less machines needed and farmers might try to make do with less loans.
1