The true economic picture is difficult to completely measure
A regenerative rancher in Kentucky who left corporate America a few years ago told me the classic story: when she told people about her goals, her neighbors said she was crazy, the land they bought could not be restored, and that she would lose a lot of money. It was hard to say they were wrong, she said, because they weren’t exposed to the full economic picture of regenerative systems.
“Regenerative math is just different than conventional math,” she said.
Turns out, she learned the land can be restored, she is quite logical in her approach, but … the money is still a challenge. A lack of rainfall this year forced her and her husband to find complementary (and more expensive) feed solutions. Despite that, the formula says keep going because the alternative is an extractive, pollutive approach — a methodology she didn’t trust. She told me she understood that this “reductive science,” as Georgia rancher Will Harris famously teaches, is usually where the conventional math breaks down, the family farmer gets rooted out, and the economic pressures become overwhelmingly favorable to big industry.
Her encouragement: We have to shine light on regenerative economics as we develop the mindsets to drive real change. We have to talk about the root of the modern linear agriculture mathematics: a will to feed the world and measure our results through cash. It leads to an oversimplification of the formula nature uses to create food, and that has resulted in high disease rates and higher prices for nutrient-dense products. We like to say we spend $1.1 trillion on food in this country because we take the $1.1 trillion we spend on medicine out of the equation. Without both being a part of our agricultural economics formula, we lose site of the goals — and the real costs — of what we are producing. In other words, we are using bad math.
How did this happen? It began in 1940 during World War II, when our agriculture industry broke from its protectionist philosophy and began feeding Europe. When the war was over, large industry did not want to let that market go, so in the early 1960s, the United States created the Adaptive Agriculture Plan through the Center for Economic Development, which said all the quiet parts out loud — big industry wanted to own agriculture and take it from family farmers. Then, they wanted to use our ability to create food cheaply to manufacture instability around the world and increase U.S. military influence.
So, what formula should we use when we talk about regenerative economics? To paint an economic picture of success within regenerative, natural systems, we should think about non-linear mathematics. The very nature of non-linear equations is chaotic and complicated. This should resonate with those who have seen how nature reacts when we transition away from conventional inputs and toward a more natural approach. Equilibrium will eventually be established, but in a unique way. Non-linear math will tell us that something is gained or lost that is different than the original quantity of inputs. This is the complex nature of regenerative thinking — that our actions are not only quantifiable in terms of yield. Something is gained — or lost — that we will only measure in the long term.
To further explain this complex feature of regenerative economics, we can look at the evolution of principles like the “paradox of enrichment,” a term coined by Michael Rosenzweig in 1971. The theory basically said that if there is an abundance of rabbits in an ecosystem, it will lead to an abundance of predatory foxes, which will then lead to a crash in the food supply, and even to the extinction of the fox and the rabbit. It went against the linear approach that had been in use, which looked more like the accompanying chart.
Yet, we learned even Rosenzweig’s advancement was oversimplified. Following Rosenzweig’s work, researchers added new elements into the economic theories of nature, acknowledging that a few exceptions actually work to stabilize the boom-bust cycle, including:
- Biodiversity: multiple species stabilize the cycle, meaning the inedible food in the ecosystem is also part of the equation;
- Intelligence: animals that can hide and adapt can avoid destabilizing the ecosystem; and
- Disease: outside forces like pollution, disease and toxins can change the formula permanently.
Add a fourth — humans and our toys — and we create an even more complicated economic picture for converting our land management into a measurable bottom line. Drawing a graph of a truly regenerative, non-linear system is perhaps not even possible; it would be opaque and incomplete due to our inability to honestly measure food as medicine.
Yet, due to the amazing work of the early adopters, who now have years of experience and modeling, we do not have to be lost in all the mathematics when we talk about the economics of regeneration. As Oliver Wendell Homes famously said, “For the simplicity on this side of complexity, I wouldn’t give you a fig. But for the simplicity on the other side of complexity, for that I would give you anything I have.”
And that’s where we end up with successful regenerative farmers today. They have broken through the linear thinking and have gone deep into the world of nutrient cycling and the economics of long-term regenerative models. Many have come out with cash in their pockets, improved communities and healthier humans. Farmers like Rick Clark in Indiana can save more than $1 million a year by focusing their efforts on reducing inputs, not necessarily focusing on yield-yield-yield. Rick wears his business plan on his sleeve for others to follow. In systems like his, there is no completion — only progress and problem solving. Will Harris can connect his operation to Bluffton, Georgia’s increased employment rate and energized downtown.
The work to model regenerative and circular economies is just getting started. One example: Jim Gerrish recently tackled a part of the regenerative economics question in Stockman Grass Farmer, where he identified 15.5 million acres of corn currently finishing livestock that could be replaced by vegetables and protein if the livestock were grazed on natural grasslands. Add to that the 20 million acres in the conservation program that pays farmers to let land sit idle and not produce food, and the opportunity costs begin to look staggering. Roughly speaking, those changes could potentially create food for 30 million people, or 10 percent of our population. And as it just so happens, according to a 2021 USDA study, that 10.2 percent of our population lives with food insecurity.
The roadmap to a regenerative future starts with understanding the complex nature of its long-term economics, without overcomplicating it. There are a few simple truths to follow. In our agricultural economy we must include human health, and we must include the true costs of our input systems. We must also acknowledge the biggest, non-linear economic truth of regeneration, humbling as it may be: we know a lot, but we will never know it all.
Ryan Slabaugh is the former executive director of Acres U.S.A. and the founder of Think Regeneration, a nonprofit that provides leadership coaching and workforce development tools for farmers and ranchers. Learn more at thinkregeneration.com.
