The Cost of Carrying On: Rethinking Conventional Farming.

Part 1: When Doing Less Is Not Enough: The Case for Farming Differently

Much has been written about the unintended consequences of conventional farming methods. Conventional or traditional farming has prioritised efficiency, output and scale; it favours an industrial-productive mindset. This type of farming is characterised by large-scale production and by the standardisation of practices and reliance on inorganic and chemical inputs.

The Promise and Price of the Green Revolution

The Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s transformed agriculture through high-yielding crop varieties, synthetic fertilisers, pesticides, irrigation and mechanisation. Food production increased dramatically, particularly for wheat and rice. The increased food availability helped avert potential food shortages in several densely populated countries. It is estimated that a billion people (and by some estimates 1 to 2 billion lives) were saved from starvation and severe famine during the second half of the 20th century.

However, the unintended consequences are substantial: soil degradation, biodiversity loss, reliance on external inputs, and increased vulnerability to price shocks, pest resistance and water scarcity, to name a few.

The Opportunity We Missed – and the Choice We Have Now

With the benefit of hindsight and the reality of these unintended consequences, what could we have done differently? What alternative management practices might have made more sense at the time?

There is always an opportunity to reassess both our objectives and the methods used to achieve them. The present situation may represent another such turning point. Consider the following scenario:

• An El Niño drought is forecast for the coming summer. Maize grain and silage crops could fail, leaving feedlots short of stockfeed.
• If this shortage contributes to a collapse in livestock markets, what might follow—and what actions would make sense now?
• What could be the cost of waiting another year to see how events unfold?
• If nothing changes on the farm, what is the likely outcome?

A New Turning Point

The 1970s offered an opportunity to examine not only how technology could increase production, but also how farming systems might be redesigned to remain productive under ecological and economic pressure. That opportunity was largely missed. Today’s challenges give us another chance—not simply to manage the next crisis, but to reconsider the assumptions underpinning current production methods. Rather than responding to immediate pressures by reinforcing dependence on costly inputs and maximising short-term output, farmers could begin building a more adaptable and resilient farming paradigm that would make greater long-term sense.

None of this should be interpreted as criticism of past decisions. We have all worked within the knowledge, economics, constraints and paradigms of our time. The conventional agricultural paradigm was adopted because it solved certain problems and delivered results. All would be well but for those unintended consequences. The encouraging thing is that we are not irrevocably trapped within that paradigm. We may be constrained by it, but we are not condemned to it.

The Illusion of Control

The irony is that industrial systems are designed for control, yet the farmer may experience progressively less control because so many critical variables originate outside the farm gate. One of the distinguishing characteristics of input-dependent systems is that a significant portion of the value created on the farm is captured elsewhere in the supply chain.

Farmers who persist with a conventional industrial model will find that they have become increasingly dependent on factors outside their control:

• Purchased inputs such as fertiliser, chemicals, feed and fuel.
• Technology and equipment with high capital replacement costs.
• Commodity markets that determine selling prices.
• Credit and financing to sustain production.

When Dependence Narrows Farmers’ Choices

As dependence on purchased inputs increases, control over these factors that influence profitability shifts away from the farmer and toward suppliers, manufacturers and external markets. This does not make such systems inherently wrong, but it does mean that profitability becomes increasingly dependent on variables beyond the farmer’s direct control.

The conventional or traditional farming trajectory leads to greater dependence and reduced room to manoeuvre. For many farmers the most important distinction of all may not be whether production is higher this season, but whether they end the next decade with more choices, or fewer choices. The deepest risk for the farmer who persists with a conventional model is not necessarily immediate failure. It is the gradual erosion of adaptive capacity.

Margins have become increasingly sensitive to external shocks. A rise in fertiliser prices, a drought, higher interest rates or weaker commodity prices can quickly erode profitability. Farmers spend more time managing production options, risk and cash flow and less time improving the underlying productive capacity of the farm.

Why Cutting Inputs Is Not a Transition

Farmers find that each year requires more effort and expense merely to maintain previous performance and they may be tempted to “retrench” some of their operational costs to practice a low-input form of conventional farming.

Reducing inputs will reduce operating costs but failing to replace production and management methods with a viable alternative creates a compounding deficit in productivity and asset value. The core implication is that there will be a trade-off between short-term financial survival and the possibility of long-term systemic collapse.

Assessing a “de-intensified” conventional farm—one that cuts input costs, machinery use and maintenance without developing a resilient alternative—requires shifting from a conventional yield-and-input review to a risk-mitigation assessment.

Rethinking How Farm Risk Is Assessed – Maximum Yield or Yield Stability

Historically, banks have looked favourably on high inputs because they have correlated with predictable, chemically pushed yields. In the case of low-input conventional farming it is likely that they would use a different structured framework to assess the de-intensified setup because historical yield data can no longer be used when the inputs that generated those yields have been cut.

The Herdscape approach is to focus on “yield stability” and to ensure that the soil’s natural nutrient reserves will not be exhausted by the de-intensification. This does not mean that if farmers make the transition they will be immune to droughts, market fluctuations or mistakes. The emphasis shifts from maximising output through external inputs to increasing the farm’s productive capacity by other means.

This will mean:

• Lower dependence on purchased inputs.
• Greater flexibility in decision-making.
• More management options during difficult periods.
• Stronger resilience to environmental and economic shocks.

The transition seeks to build autonomy and adaptive capacity. Although it may initially feel more difficult because there is no universal recipe, an effective system ultimately requires less intervention and less crisis management.

The key question, now, is:

“How do I increase my farm’s natural capacity to adapt and maintain production despite rising constraints?”

The Long-Term Consequence

In contrast, the long-term aspiration of regenerative management is not simply better soil or better grazing. It is to create a farm where:

• Natural capital increases rather than decreases.
• Managerial options expand rather than contract.
• Dependence on external inputs declines.
• Confidence grows because the producer has more levers under their own control.

 Part 2 to follow …. The implications of practicing low-input conventional farming through cost-retrenchment, of cutting inputs and halting capital reinvestment without transitioning to regenerative systems;