Agribusiness is starting to preach some regenerative practices. This raises the question: Do ecological farmers need to demand pure motives prior to celebrating progress?
Consider how Pioneer is starting to provide a standard treatment containing boron, sulfur, potassium, manganese, cobalt, and molybdenum on all its seed. This is an implicit admission that trace minerals — not just NPK — matter. We may quibble about the exclusion of, say, zinc or copper in this particular mix, but the adoption of the practice is a step in the right direction.
Similarly, cover cropping is up — from 2.7 percent of all U.S. farmland in 2012 to 4.7 percent in 2022, and likely higher today, per the USDA Census of Agriculture. Big corporations like Nutrien have even begun to offer cover crop programs.
On top of this, precision nutrient management is enabling less fertilizer waste, large-scale companies are offering biological inputs, and USDA is entering the regenerative space. Everyone has an opinion on how effective the new $700 million program will be, but the idea of such a thing was unthinkable a decade ago.
Again, should this be reason to rejoice, or simply cause for more concern?
It’s natural for eco-farmers to raise a skeptical eyebrow at these developments. We’ve seen too much greenwashing to be naïve. Big ag’s instinct is still reductionistic: isolate the useful practice, package it as a product, and keep the farmer dependent. “Regenerative” becomes a label for inputs rather than a philosophy of stewardship. The big corporations will keep promoting cover crops and biology precisely as long as it makes them money — not necessarily because their driving motivation is now healthy soil and healthy food.
On the other hand, perhaps we shouldn’t despise baby steps. If a grower starts using a cover crop mix because it helps with compaction, infiltration, weeds or erosion, that’s one step away from the chemical treadmill. If he tries a biological because it works, he’s now only one good season away from asking better questions: Why did it work? What does it reveal about the plant-soil system? What else have I been missing? It makes sense that practices flow from beliefs, but often — in real life — the opposite is true: changing a practice can precipitate a change in mindset.
One more important thing to remember is that these regenerative practices — whatever the motive — are likely to produce healthier food. That’s our ultimate goal in farming, isn’t it?
The Apostle Paul told the Philippians, “It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill… The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.” Perhaps we need to remind ourselves, “It is true that some adopt regenerative agriculture simply out of desire for risk mitigation and increased profit… But the important thing is that in any case, whether from false motives or true, some regenerative practices are being adopted, and food is becoming healthier.”
And because of this, we should rejoice.
And that’s the view from the country.
