The Deceit of Subsidies

And the Regenerative Ag Alternative

Hello,

I've been thinking too much about crop subsidies lately - why they are used and how they have changed agriculture so much over the last 90 years. Subsidies have shaped the amount of land that has been plowed, the value of marginal land, and food prices. They support, enhance, and hold up a vast majority of the enterprises in conventional agriculture. Subsidies are the backbone of modern farming.

Regenerative agriculture doesn't need subsidies to remain viable, and today I want to explore a couple of reasons why that is.

First, in regenerative agriculture the farmer optimizes for the health of the whole ecosystem. His decisions factor in the health of soil microbiology, plant nutrition, and animal wellbeing. The land rarely to never has only one species of plants growing on it. Because the goal of the farm is the health of the ecosystem, the farmer chooses not to produce a crop that fits into a subsidy program.

The subsidized crops that have become the backbone of the conventional system are planted as a standalone, mono-crop. In order to meet grade, all competing plants and biology is aggressively removed. This optimizes for the single crop produced, but takes no account for the field ecosystem as a whole. To a farmer practicing regenerative agriculture, a subsidized mono-crop would cause harm to the ecosystem they are developing. Changing the goal to optimizing for the health of the whole ecosystem changes the input decisions.

Second, regenerative agriculture focuses on local distribution where possible. The productive capacity of the land needs to cover the expenses of the land. By cutting out distribution to far away places, the farmer is better able to make a viable living from the land. Produce it local, sell it local. This local economy facilitates transparency in the interaction and encourages honesty since repeat business is only possible where trust exists.

Subsidies are a political tool and are used to extend influence either over a foreign nation or a domestic interest group. They guarantee the price of the commodity to the buyer at a low price yet promise the seller a higher price. The subsidy lies to both the buyer and seller about the true cost, and requires a funding source to make up the difference. Such luxuries don't exist in a local economy.

Third, regenerative agriculture seeks efficiency. To be productive in a regenerative agriculture ecosystem, the farmer has to capture the energy of the sun and effectively cycle that energy through the plants, soil, and animals. The farmer who has bare ground or lack of plant diversity isn't managing this cycle well. He is wasting the energy of the sun and missing an opportunity to increase the efficiency of the energy cycle.

Now one of the lies that a subsidy tells is this: it lies to the farmer about how efficient their energy production is. The farmer receiving the subsidy sees no reason to change their input decisions because they are being deceitfully rewarded for the poor decisions they are already making about their energy efficiency.

By taking the whole ecosystem into account, the regenerative farmer avoids this lie as he seeks to optimize for the efficiency the energy cycle.

I would love to see a collapse of crop subsidies. Farmers would be required to treat their work as a business. They would seek efficiency and overall health in their farm ecosystem to remain viable. I'm grateful that regenerative agriculture is leading the way and demonstrating that there is a profitable farming alternative that doesn't rely on the deceitful market signals of subsidies.

---

I've found that writing about things on my mind allows me to wrestle with ideas and synthesize information. My writing isn't about sharing knowledge (I don't have much of that). I write to understand better and clarify my thinking. If you are interested in engaging with these ideas or challenging me on something I've written here, I welcome your input!