Organic or Regenerative? Thoughts on a needless dichotomy
Back in April this year for our Soil Science Day we had the pleasure of hosting Dr. Tom Dykstra to share his knowledge and experience on the value of leaf Brix readings as a powerful instrument to assess plant health.
In short, since the main function of plants is to create sugars out of carbon dioxide and sunlight it follows that the healthier a plant is, the greater its capacity to create sugar and so the higher the Brix value of its leaves. Brixs readings are, thus, a straighforward indicator of plant health, and a very precise one at that: plants whose leaves give a reading below 10 cannot be healthy in any capacity whereas those that give a reading of 14 are certain to be disease free. It’s not magic: high sugar content in leaves can only be achieved by strong, healthy plants.
According to Dr. Dykstra this is the first test one has to do even prior to assessing soil health or any other metric. If the plant is healthy, then it follows that the soil, its food web and the surroundings are healthy so there’s less incentives to conduct other tests and incur further expenses. This doesn’t mean other tests are rendered obsolete by testing Brix, especially if our plant inventory is relatively small. Testing for Brix values requires sacrificing many leaves and not every growing operation can afford this.
For many it may seem counterintuitive if not outright foolish to try and test the sugar content of leaves as a way of assessing how healthy plants are. This attitude is rather widespread because many of us have been taught not to be systems thinkers. Instead, we’re taught or accustomed to observe everything in separation. From this kind of outlook it’s easy to miss the connection between plants, sunlight, carbon dioxide and the role of sugars in every vital function of the plant. Sap is seen as a content of plants, not as a metabolic product of plants that can inform us about the latter’s health as a function of how well it is using solar energy to create sugar.
This is precisely why many people are still on the fence or completely skeptical about organic land management and organic products, and why people are inclined to see organic approaches with disbelief and even derision. It is also why concepts such as “regenerative” or “restorative” —which are gaining a lot of traction— may elicit further cynicism from the skeptical which might see in these terms an attempt at rebranding a fradulent scheme and unjustly obscuring the merits of the agrochemical industry.
So let’s promote a holistic, systemic approach and for that let’s begin with language.
Language and specific terms are often taken for granted. We may hear a new word and, based on the context try to infer its meaning. But that doesn’t mean we know what it stands for and much less what it means for others. “Organic”, “Regenerative” and “Restorative” are point in case.
As Dr. Dykstra once observed and to paraphrase him: everyone has more or less a similar understanding of the term “organic” and what it entails but a Google search of “regenerative” (in the context of agiculture) will produce over a dozen different definitions. He expressed hope that this semantic debate could be settled once and for all, so we at OHBA might as well take a stab at that.
At the very surface, “organic” is widely understood to mean “without the use of synthetic agrochemicals”. This means no use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides. As clear as it may seem, it is also too broad and vague a meaning.
Another point of contention is that “organic” is often understood to be defined not by what contributes to a growing operation but by what is not allowed in it. To illustrate: very often products carrying the USDA certified organic label add disclaimers of the type “USDA organic standards prohibit the use of pesticides harmful to human health”. This way something may be considered organic not by what it has or by its attributes and virtues, but by specific defects and problems it lacks.
Defining something as “organic” on the basis of what it doesn’t have adds the problem that something lacking in value could easily qualify as organic. Produce grown on soil that hasn’t been properly improved, where nutrients haven’t been replenished but where no synthetic fertilizers, persticides or herbicides are used would perfectly meet the criteria for “organic”.
Even if there’s no use of synthetic agrochemicals, a nutrient-deficient soil will no yield healthy, nutrient dense plants. And, without the added artificial growth stimulus of fertilizers yield is bound to be low. Such a growing operation would be destined to be economically inviable and as such would be used by detractors as a case study on how organics are subpar and fraduluent.
This is one of the tangible reasons why too many people are skeptical of organic approaches: a vague definition of organics based only on the “don’ts” fails to be holistic and propositive. It is also, perhaps, the most common way the reputation of organics has been hindered. When growers don’t switch with a systemic and holistic understanding of organic growing they’re bound to compounding production of subpar quality with low yield. If something is worse than low quality it’s low quality with low yield and this is precisely one of the most widespread misconceptions about organics. It’s organics not done right.
Doing organics right entails gauging the health of plants and the soil they grow in. It goes beyond outlining what the operation shouldn’t have and focusing on all the attributes the operation must have for it to be organic and successful. It becomes clear that soil should be of the greatest quality possible, that it should be improved and that it should be frequently tested for variations in quality.
This means that organic growers are compelled to understand the workings of the soil and constantly look for updates on soil science. It means they must be aware of the interplay between plants, soil microbiology and the food web. That they must go beyond looking for easy, single-metric silver bullets that will give them success. They must pay as much attention to yield as to nutrient density and the composition of the soils tehy use.
This in turn compels us to come to terms with the fact that large swathes of land are devastated and covered not by soil but dirt. These expanses of land, therefore must be regenerated, restored. Hence the terms “regenerative” and “restorative”.
If an organic operation does not monitor the evolution of its soil, the fluctuations in its microbiology, the robustness of nutrient cycling or periodically test the health of its plants not only will it be unable of guaranteeing that its production is qualitative enough and eventually becoming inviable with depletion of growing resources, it may even fail to guarantee that the soil is free of contaminants that may place the operation at odds with organic standards. In other words, organic operations functioning properly must not only make sure that their soil is not being depleted but have to improve it constantly by putting organic matter back so that the quality and yield of their produce is maximized; that organic standards are met; that the soil will remain productive for generations to come, and, very importantly, that instead of taking away from and deteriorating the enviroment, it enters a synergistic relationship with it.
Put bluntly and succinctly: organics done right is regenerative and the latter is organic by default.
It may appear to some that this is all too much of a hassle Is this all worth it? It’s more than worth it — it’s imperative for our health and continued survival.
It’s no news that organic and restorative produce are increasingly in high demand and that’s because people are becoming more health-conscious and because every day we understand better just how synthetic land management spreads devastation not just where it’s conducted but even hundreds and thousands of miles away. Embracing organics and the regeneration of our living space is not only a judicious and profitable economic decision, it’s necessary if we want to leave a world worth-living in for future generations.
-B.G.
