Perception Is Not Reality: The 20 ‘Cons’ (that aren’t) of Regenerative Ag

Perception Is Not Reality: The 20 ‘Cons’ (that aren’t) of Regenerative Ag

Kent Solberg, UA Consultant

After a recent Understanding Ag, LLC event, someone commented about how upbeat the UA staff is concerning regenerative agriculture. The comment was along the lines of there are plenty of “pros” to regenerative agriculture, but are there any “cons?”

I took this as a challenge and have worked to develop a list of potential cons. They are not necessarily in order of importance. My intent in developing this list is to provide a frank discussion about things some might perceive as “cons.” It may not be an exhaustive list, but I believe this “Top 20” list can serve as a conversation starter. In my next post, I’ll round out my top 20 list with the final 10 “cons” and share some closing thoughts. Based on my years of experience working with my fellow farmers, following are a list the first 10 perceived “cons” by those who are considering making the transition from conventional to regenerative agriculture.

1. Change is hard: Change is scarry and regenerative agriculture is a change from the industrial commodity status quo. Like it or not, fear drives many of our decisions. Fear is an emotional response to the unknown or the unfamiliar (change). Research has demonstrated that fear of humiliation or rejection is the greatest motivator in most of our decision making and enters our thought process before logic and reason. This is a psychological and biological fact. It takes great courage to move beyond the fear that dominates our decisions. Farmers and ranchers are human, so we, too, fear of what others may think of us. Yet change is common in agriculture and life. Not many commodity farmers are farming like grandpa did: running open-station narrow front tractors with trip buckets: milking in buckets: using pull-type combines: a scythe: or draft animals’ power to do most of their farming (unless they are part of a small agricultural sub-community). All segments of society are accustomed to operating within a certain set of social norms, and industrial commodity farmers are no different. We feel adherence to these norms ensures our position within that social unit and most will work to avoid “rocking the boat” for fear of becoming ostracized from their peer group.

2. “Traditional” academic research isn’t abundant: We cannot assess all regenerative agricultural data based on traditional randomized, complete block-design experiments common to agronomic research. Regenerative agriculture involves working within complex biological and ecological systems. Utilizing analysis applied in the ecological sciences will be more appropriate in understanding holistic management applications, and most agricultural researchers have not been trained in this arena and are not comfortable in this realm.  A few researchers have and are now stepping into evaluating regenerative agriculture utilizing a variety of analytical tools to assess results.

3. Management trumps practice: Results in regenerative agriculture are directly related to the intentionality of effort. It’s the “how” as much as the “what.” Management is often as important (or more important) than practice. For many years farmers and ranchers have been led to believe if one selects from a “menu” of practices, it will automatically lead to good things. Take the various “best management practices” or BMP’s we have seen over the years. BMPs themselves have not resolved the issues they were intended to address, including water quality. We have had 50 years of water quality BMP’s that have addressed a few issues but have not completely reached levels of environmental protection or restoration as promised. BMP’s have often been sold as “better than nothing,” but they have not truly “fixed” the problem because many “solutions” in agriculture simply address symptoms of greater problems. The Six Principles of Soil Health and the Three Rules of Adaptive Stewardship strive to address the root problems we see across the land and implementing them well provides the greatest results.

4. The regenerative journey is ongoing: You will not “arrive” at some regenerative destination. Regenerative agriculture is not a checklist of “BMPs.” BMP’s have given the false expectation that once all the boxes are checked, we have somehow arrived. Regenerative agriculture is a journey, not a destination. It’s about building upon our previous efforts. No one has arrived, even those who have been at this for a quarter century or more. However, we can and do observe continued advances in developing the ecosystems of our farms and ranches from those who stay the course.

5. Non-linear responses: For too many years, farmers and ranchers have come to expect a linear response to a specific practice. For example, add X to get Y response. Unlike the linear response we’ve come to expect in chemistry, most biological system’s responses are affected by the compounding and cascading effects of management, which can lead to an exponential, non-linear, response. Exponential responses follow the sigmoid curve, often beginning slowly and are dependent upon the initial starting point. If soil is highly degraded, and most are, it will take time and effort to reverse decades, if not centuries, of abuse. However, advances in biological systems often build on previous positive responses, provided there have been no significant disturbances in the interim. And once the biological community gains traction, the results can be impressive.

6. Initial results may not be impressive: You may not get big results with your initial steps, e.g. "I'm going to start with a single species cover crop to see what happens." One does need to start somewhere, and we need to get comfortable with new skills and practices vs. trying to do everything at once. However, in regenerative agriculture, we are restoring habitat for the soil microbial community, so it can do its work. The Six Principles of Soil Health are not a menu of options. We make the greatest progress by applying most of the principles to most of the acres most of the time (once we are comfortable and confident with our management). As discussed above, farmers have been trained to expect a linear response with application of a product or practice. But that’s not how biological systems work, and soil is a biological system. We will not “arrive” by simply using strip-till and a single species cover crop, but they can be good beginning steps.

7. No “magic fairy dust.” Many in the agricultural industry are attempting to sell farmers and ranchers a quick and ease fix because they understand that’s what farmers and ranchers (and the rest of our society) want: quick and easy fixes to (often) complex problems. Understanding Ag is not in that business. Instead, our approach is to provide farmers and ranchers with the foundational (and operational) understanding of key principles that will empower long-term, regenerative success that is not dependent upon perpetual consulting or costly inputs.

8. The end of SWAG: You may stop getting “free” caps, jackets, dinners, mugs or other perks from being a “good customer” of certain retailers because you no longer are dependent upon their products.

9. Your alma mater professors probably won’t appreciate you. There will be pushback from the agricultural "industry" and academia. If you choose to change, you will challenge the status quo as you think for yourself and more holistically about your business, your land, your family and your community.

10. Your “friends” may not be who you think they are. When you start doing “unconventional” things, you will find out who your friends truly are and what they stand for, and you’ll likely discover that having quality friends is always better than a large group of acquaintances.

Stay tuned for my next post when I’ll round out my top 20 list with 10 more perceived “cons” conventional producers often anticipate as they make the transition from conventional to regenerative agriculture.