Gabe Brown

[WiltonRanch]

Was watching a presentation by him online. What is your take on his claims that the soil has enough fertility but need the micro biome healthy to access it. Sounds like mining but he appears to be making it work. I’m a bit suspicious about those claims but his ideas of building the biological activity of the soil has merit.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

All soils are not created equal.
There are certainly many places in the world with deep rich soils with centuries worth of nutrients, making them available is the challenge.
Then there is shallow grey wooded soils such as ours, with almost no OM, no K, very deficient in S, low in P, and most of the micros, especially Cu.

In Russia we met a farmer in the Black sea region, with deep chernozem soil, he showed us around and explained his methods. He has completely stopped applying fertilizer, only the snake oils (not in a derogatory sense, that is the best name I could think of at the moment) that are supposed to release the existing nutrients. And when you have 4 feet of rich black high OM soils, it is working well for him. Personally, if I had that kind of soil, and those heat units, and that rainfall, I wouldn't be satisfied with the crops we saw, but as he explained, there is a lot more to it, with the lack of safety nets etc.

The biggest thing Gabe has going for his operation, is lots of livestock. In theory, any of us should be able to close the nutrient loop with enough livestock.

[tubs]

He is looking at profitability and not necessary the highest yields. We are like drug addict getting more and more fertilizers herbicides and fungicides. We should look at trying to kick he habit. It is the same as big pharma does to our healthcare. I think we definite need some of them but we are let down the garden path with all this crap. All we are doing is being more exposed to more risks. We probably have to be somewhere in the middle.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

He is looking at profitability and not necessary the highest yields. We are like drug addict getting more and more fertilizers herbicides and fungicides. We should look at trying to kick he habit. It is the same as big pharma does to our healthcare. I think we definite need some of them but we are let down the garden path with all this crap. All we are doing is being more exposed to more risks. We probably have to be somewhere in the middle.

It is a vicious circle where we need high yields to pay for high land prices and high rents, so we need more fertilizer to get the high yields, which requires more fungicide, and more PGR's, and we need to protect that high investment, so we need more seed treatment, and herbicide, and insecticide, and what is the point of spending all that without the latest and greatest genetics, then we need to equipment to apply all those products, then as long as mother nature cooperates, it pays off, and we need more even higher priced land to justify the cost of the expensive equipment.

If the cost of acquiring or renting land were to reset, we would have the option of aiming for the most profitable(per bushel) route, rather than the most gross income. But once we are on the roller coaster, that is no longer an option.

I do take a different approach, just because of the high risks around here. Before I spend every penny, I assume that mother nature is not on my team, and I ask what is the ROI of this operation/application after a hail storm, flood, frost, snow etc. And fertilizer is one of the few that will eventually have an ROI, even if it isn't when I planned on it.

[bobofthenorth]

I've heard Gabe speak a couple of times. Its always thought provoking. On the one hand I'm natively suspicious of guys who want to travel around talking about how smart their enterprise is. My experience is that the really smart ones stay home making money and keep their mouth shut about how they are doing that.

One point that Gabe makes which always resonates with me is that in nature you will never find an ecosystem with just one species growing by itself. His point being that we need to mix plant species, maximize interaction with animals and use beneficial insects to achieve the most efficient ecosystem for our crops to grow in. However, no matter how abnormal it may be in nature, a nice clean field of waving wheat or a solid mat of blooming canola is a thing of beauty in my eyes.

[TASFarms]

You can do a lot things and look good when you get over 15” of annual rain fall

[furrowtickler]

A lot of what Gabe does can be done with crop rotation, using less salt based fertilizer and using some carbon based fertility that improves soil health.
One of the main reasons they are considered “snake oils” comes from the very ones that push very high salt based fertility programs that do cause issues in the soil that does lead to enhanced crop diseases that require fungicides.
Like said above , it’s a treadmill money machine for the Ag industry. Tweety is not wrong , and in a way neither is Autrandia . But instead of offering real solutions, they simply ridicule the status quo.

Tubs gets it , we need to be somewhere in the middle
Each area , soil type and rain fall averages are different, so a single approach like Gabes may not be all encompassing but does have some merit in many areas with livestock. But now with woke left politics attacking livestock and methane as the new climate boogeyman, that future is uncertain now too .

[chuckChuck]

You can do a lot things and look good when you get over 15” of annual rain fall

Bismarck is warmer and drier on average than many places farther north. So Gabe Brown's advantage is not more precipitation.

His advantage is management of what he has for resources.

Healthy intensively grazed and well rested pastures are more productive.

[Sheepwheat]

Whoops

[Sheepwheat]

I like it when people aren’t cookie cutter types. I like it when people do things differently than the prevailing model of amazing, hundred year success in the grain industry. (Sarcasm)

He has animals. Not everyone wants to or does, so his methods will remain a mystery and ridiculous to some. To understand what he is doing, one has to actually watch and listen and learn. Most do not. They see cows, and tune out.

The whole reason he started doing what he does, is he was going broke, he was getting nailed by droughts. He saw the results of his early methods in drought years. When the soil is covered with massive amounts of material, it is very drought resistant.

Another thing is that his fields look ugly. Like an organic party mix. You have to get past the everything needs glyphosate every other week mindset. Take this fall. With the massive regrowth after harvest, everyone did what when they saw green? Sprayed the tar out of volunteer annual crops. Crops with living roots. Crops that could have been grazed. I guess they were scared of “all that moisture” being used up, perhaps some short term tidying up of nutrients. Mostly though, they want to look like they are on the ball. Can’t have weeds, or green growth now, can we? That denotes poor farmer, correct? They forget, or are clueless about how the soil they depend on is fed and built.

Not everyone can be a Gabe. But if one has animals some of his methods should be tried. I have seeded several acres without anything but unrolling hay. Most guys don’t have patience for that, as it takes a couple or three years to see results. I can attest that the soil rapidly rebuilds itself with big additions of organic materials and manure in tandem. And this summer, underneath the thatch, it was muddy to the surface all year long. I couldn’t even believe it.

So I think for the farmers who are a bit different in the first place, his methods can be beneficial. To cookie cutter farmers who need no animals, can’t stand any green in their fields, and a single species waving in the wind, it’s a non starter.

I think it is about the soil. What is best for the soil? Look at nature. And copy it, accelerate it if you can.

[Blaithin]

Four biggest reasons people say they won’t/can’t try similar methods.

1. The diversity uses up the fertilizer they applied.

2. The diversity uses up what little moisture there is.

3. Don’t have livestock/fencing/water.

4. Can’t afford the time it takes for production to even back out due to debt/payments.


Biggest, biggest hurdle, switch in mentality.

Remember Grassfarmer, break down his name.

Grass.

Farmer.

If you farm the grass, everything else becomes a tool, especially the livestock. But generally the grass is seen as a tool to get the product, not the product of the tool.

Same switch needs to be made for soil. The soil shouldn’t be the tool, the soil should be the product. Try and think that way for 5 minutes and it’s both discouraging and slightly terrifying, but if you can start to get it to work that way, theoretically your “inputs” should start to drop.

If only it happened in a year, not 10.

[jamesb]

This is a great discussion. As a former mixed farmer up until not that many years ago, I can see what the thinking is on one hand but on the other hand profitability can be a real issue. These days if there is a desire to grow the farms acres, generating cash flow to make payments is job 1. Farming with a wholistic frame of mind with using low inputs, manure from cattle, etc can be sustainable but I feel it works best with a established outfit that doesnt have growth in mind. Mixed farms are a great place to trade straw , screenings, and other grains for high value manure. Green feed is a great rotational crop. We didnt have much permanent forage but used lots of millet or green oats. Breaking the rotation with forage is a great management tool. I think for those with no stomach for operating loans or high cash expenses the mixed farm of the type discussed have great merit. That being said, what we found that comparing say what a half section of canola would gross (or net) per acre and the work to grow that canola versus using that acres for feed and spending the winter with a cow / calf operation. I would never fault anyone who picked either way if they could be profitable. I know of nice guys going around speaking touting their "holistic" cattle farming plan that sounded good but if you looked at their actual operation things didnt look like what you expected. Sad thing too in so many cases is that how a lot of these people are seen by the neighbors in their area. Somewhat similar to the bible verse " no prophet is accepted in his hometown" For me if an operation can transition to a successful multigeneration operation then they are on the right path. I see a lot of outfits that do transition but very quickly change the method of operation. There was no buy in by the young generation. I know a pretty good guy that took it pretty hard that his kids didnt farm cause it was his way or the highway.

[Braveheart]

The caveat is that even holistic farmers need to import nutrients. Even if your farm is big enough to have it's own hay and straw, those nutrients are "exported" from the hayfield or grain field to the feeding area (hopefully on the range or pasture). The holistic management course I took promoted buying your hay and straw so you're just importing nutrients from someone else's farm. It's hard to keep a good mineral cycle without some land somewhere being shorted.

My above statements are my own observations and are relevant to farming here is the northern parts. I don't believe there's such a thing as regenerative agriculture.

Re Gabe Brown, is his a sustainable farm? None of us really know because we don't really know his business. I can guarantee if he didn't have the oil patch families that live in Bismarck buying his products he wouldn't have what we think he has going.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

This is a great discussion. As a former mixed farmer up until not that many years ago, I can see what the thinking is on one hand but on the other hand profitability can be a real issue. These days if there is a desire to grow the farms acres, generating cash flow to make payments is job 1. Farming with a wholistic frame of mind with using low inputs, manure from cattle, etc can be sustainable but I feel it works best with a established outfit that doesnt have growth in mind. Mixed farms are a great place to trade straw , screenings, and other grains for high value manure. Green feed is a great rotational crop. We didnt have much permanent forage but used lots of millet or green oats. Breaking the rotation with forage is a great management tool. I think for those with no stomach for operating loans or high cash expenses the mixed farm of the type discussed have great merit. That being said, what we found that comparing say what a half section of canola would gross (or net) per acre and the work to grow that canola versus using that acres for feed and spending the winter with a cow / calf operation. I would never fault anyone who picked either way if they could be profitable. I know of nice guys going around speaking touting their "holistic" cattle farming plan that sounded good but if you looked at their actual operation things didnt look like what you expected. Sad thing too in so many cases is that how a lot of these people are seen by the neighbors in their area. Somewhat similar to the bible verse " no prophet is accepted in his hometown" For me if an operation can transition to a successful multigeneration operation then they are on the right path. I see a lot of outfits that do transition but very quickly change the method of operation. There was no buy in by the young generation. I know a pretty good guy that took it pretty hard that his kids didnt farm cause it was his way or the highway.

Very well said.
You hit the nail on the head with the comments about gross per acre and growth.
If your Grandpa was the last one who had to buy the land in your operation, and you have no inention or need to expand beyond that, then the economics of paying for land at todays prices are irrelevant, and you can do whatever you like.
As a still mixed up farmer, but almost out of cattle now, in recent years, no matter how I run the numbers, there is no way cattle can compare to the net or gross profit per acre ( on acres fit for crops).

I see all of the benefits of mixing livestock and grain, I think that is the direction the industry needs to go to keep our livestock industry profitable. The only silver bullet I have found to make this ground start to produce after decades of neglect is copious amounts of manure. But since I have had to buy all my land, mostly at arms length full market values, there is no way in he** I can pay for it using it for pasture or hay.
But maybe I'm doing it wrong.

[jamesb]

Very well said.
You hit the nail on the head with the comments about gross per acre and growth.
If your Grandpa was the last one who had to buy the land in your operation, and you have no inention or need to expand beyond that, then the economics of paying for land at todays prices are irrelevant, and you can do whatever you like.
As a still mixed up farmer, but almost out of cattle now, in recent years, no matter how I run the numbers, there is no way cattle can compare to the net or gross profit per acre ( on acres fit for crops).

I see all of the benefits of mixing livestock and grain, I think that is the direction the industry needs to go to keep our livestock industry profitable. The only silver bullet I have found to make this ground start to produce after decades of neglect is copious amounts of manure. But since I have had to buy all my land, mostly at arms length full market values, there is no way in he** I can pay for it using it for pasture or hay.
But maybe I'm doing it wrong.

There are quite a few cattle guys buying land in my area but they calving out a hell of a lot of cattle and or have purebred (is is still called that now that so many breeds are intermixed hybrids?) operations. They don't have a lot of cash crop.