🌾 Replay: This Week’s GrowStraya Call Wow. This week’s conversation was a good one. Strong, grounded discussion around what’s actually happening for Aussie farmers and food systems right now, and so good to hear directly from Treefeerer as well. Real voice. Real perspective. Real experience on the ground. These calls continue to show what happens when infrastructure meets purpose. Not hype. Not theory. Real conversations about: * farmer independence * regenerative land stewardship * stronger food systems * power moving back to producers If you care about where your food comes from, the future of Australian farming, or how practical blockchain utility is showing up in the real world, this replay is worth your time. 👉 Watch here: https://rally.r-link.com/recording-preview/699eba51eb0dd077221b4210 Let us know what stood out for you 🌱

🌾 Replay from last night’s GrowStraya call 18.2.26 For anyone who couldn’t make it live, here’s the replay. Solid, grounded conversation about what’s already happening for Aussie farmers and our food system. Worth a listen if you care about real-world impact and backing farmers. Replay - https://rally.r-link.com/recording-preview/69958051eb0dd077221a5796

- Vitamin B12: Synthesized by ruminal bacteria from cobalt in grass - Vitamin K2 MK-4: Created from K1 during digestion, concentrated in fat - CLA (conjugated linoleic acid): Formed during biohydrogenation, anti-cancer properties - Carnosine: Synthesized from beta-alanine and histidine - Creatine: Created from amino acids glycine, arginine, methionine - Taurine: Synthesized from cysteine and methionine - Complete amino acid profile: Assembled from incomplete plant proteins Input ingredients: None of these exist in grass Output product: All of these concentrated in meat Ruminants don't just eat grass. They create nutrients out of grass.

Here’s the thing. A lot of organic farmers and organic organisations feel threatened by “regenerative ag”. I get it … regen is often poorly defined, unevenly enforced, and sometimes used as a marketing shortcut for what organics has been building (and proving) for years. But turning it into a tribal war hurts all of us. Because while we argue about labels, the reality of who controls acres, revenue, and risk protection keeps rolling on: Very large farms (5,000+ acres) - 1.4% of farms (27,034 of 1,900,487) - control 41.8% of farmland acres (367.7M of 880.1M) - capture roughly ~35% of revenue - and roughly ~35% of insurance/handouts So if we’re serious about shifting agriculture at scale, we don’t win by fragmenting into camps. We win by building shared standards, shared measurement, and shared market pull. Scale check (this is the bit that should humble all of us) Organic (USA): - ~3.8M harvested organic cropland acres - ~8.7M total organic acres (including pasture)That’s still about ~1% of total farmland (and it’s even less if you only count harvested cropland). Regenerative: - “Regen acres” is messy because the definition is messy. - Best estimate you’ve cited: ~25M acres third-party certified regenerative in the US. Practice-based “regen-ish” cropping acres (not certification): - No-till cropland: ~105M acres (2022) - Cover crops: ~18M acres (2022) The common ground (where we should link arms) Organic and regenerative overlap heavily on: - soil function and biology - reduced dependency on fragile input chains - resilience in drought/flood/weather volatility - better water outcomes - stronger long-term farm economics A useful line to hold Organic is a standard. Regenerative is a direction. We need both: a credible floor and a scalable path forward. If we can stop policing the tribe and start aligning incentives, we can turn “regen vs organic” into the only argument that matters: how quickly can we move acres toward measurable outcomes, and get farmers paid fairly for it?

Okay. Here’s the thing we all need to remember: You are not an average. I’m going to look directly into the LinkedIn camera and say it again, because apparently we’ve all agreed averages are a personality type. You. Are. Not. An. Average. You’re an individual data point. With your own soil, your own weather, your own compaction sins, and your own “this field is cursed” corner. So for the love of God and good agronomy, use the data from your farm, not the “average” from a university trial, a nutrient booklet, an ag PhD, or a PDF last updated sometime around the flip phone era. Stop farming like you’re a statistical concept Averages are useful. They are. But if you base your nutrient replacement plan on someone else’s removal rate, you might as well base your calving plan on the average pregnancy rate of cattle in Brazil. You wouldn’t do that. Unless it’s a Tuesday and you’re feeling reckless. What we’re seeing in the real world We’ve worked through nearly 100 removal tests with growers. And yes, I’m about to say “on average” while telling you not to use averages, which is the agronomic equivalent of saying “I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed.” Here’s the point: When we pull the actual removal rate from your farm and compare it to whatever baseline you’ve been using, K-State, UGuelph, the co-op sheet, your dealer, or “Dad always did it this way”… we’re saving guys about $10-12 per acre. Not by doing anything exotic. Not by buying a product with a logo that looks like a spaceship. Just by saying: “Johnny, why are you replacing nutrients based on someone else’s spreadsheet when we can use your numbers?” And no, this isn’t a sales pitch This isn’t a “trust me bro” claim. This is not marketing. This is not vibes. It’s your data. It’s boring. And it’s undeniable. Which is exactly why some folks are having a hard time wrapping their heads around it. Because we’ve been trained to believe: • More input equals more yield • The book says • The average says • The rep says