Tensions often exist between groups that share principles but that emphasize these principles differently. Everyone believes, for example, that both proper diet and sufficient exercise are important for personal health. But some groups/organizations focus on what one should or shouldn’t eat (e.g., vegetarians, paleo, etc.) and some prioritize exercise regimes (Crossfit, marathoners, etc.). There’s no inherent contradiction between the two, and memberships often overlap, but our tendency is to join one camp or the other.
This propensity to band together being a constant of human nature, it’s no surprise that we do the same thing within our relatively small cohort of ecological farmers. In particular, there are those of us who emphasize the role of testing and of applying targeted off-farm amendments, and there are also those of us who focus on holistic farm systems — biological diversity, integration of livestock, companion planting, etc. The former could be described as the “inputs” camp and the latter as the “systems” cohort. We’re not going to name organizations here, but if you’re at all familiar with this space, you can easily come up with a few companies or outfits that seem to fall into one group or the other.
The important point — having recognized this distinction — is that to a person, those in the inputs camp recognize the vital nature of also incorporating ecosystems services onto the farm, and the systems people understand that growing at the commercial scale requires ecologically beneficial inputs. I.e., there is no inherent contradiction between these groups — the Venn diagrams overlap significantly. The difference is simply in emphasis. We should always remember and emphasize our agreements.
And yet, there’s a good reason to have a healthy debate between these camps regarding one particular question: which approach is best suited to help existing conventional growers convert to a more ecologically sustainable method of farming? Should individuals, companies and government policies nudge farmers and ranchers toward using nutritional products so they can start reducing synthetic fertilizers and can begin to eliminate herbicides and pesticides? Or should they focus on implementing systems, such as cover cropping, perennial crops and pollinator strips, that will help build healthy soil in different ways?
Ideally, the answer is yes — we should support both of these approaches. And yet one can’t help thinking that the “input swap” strategy — as it’s often derisively called! — might be an easier bridge to cross for the conventional grower. It’s a less radical, less risky path. Farmers already own a sprayer and a spreader; they probably don’t have a roller-crimper, livestock fencing or a way to plant and care for perennials.
Popular convention holds that farmers are all rugged individualists, yet peer pressure is just as strong among us as in any corner of society. The systems-based methods are often just a bit too unconventional for those who care about what their neighbors think — not to mention more expensive, in many cases, with a longer ROI.
Yet, again, let’s remember that we all believe in the importance of both better inputs and improved ecological systems, and that the maturing ecological farmer will incorporate all of the above.
And that’s the view from the country.
