Events have overtaken the argument.
Across the world, and now very plainly in Australia, farmers are again being squeezed by forces largely outside their control. Fuel insecurity, fertiliser shortages, freight disruption, and energy-linked price spikes are pressing in from every side. In April 2026, ABC reported growing anxiety among South Australian growers about access to diesel and fertiliser heading into the season. At the same time, Australia was scrambling to secure urea supplies from Brunei because conflict in the Middle East had disrupted a supply chain on which Australian cropping is heavily dependent. Australia imports more than two-thirds of its fertiliser-grade urea from the Middle East, and import prices rose sharply in the weeks that followed, lifting more than 50% in some markets.
This is more than a temporary inconvenience. It exposes a structural weakness in modern farming systems. Too many farms have been built around the assumption that diesel will always be available, synthetic nitrogen will always arrive on time, and both will remain affordable enough to underpin profitable production. When those assumptions break down, the farm is left exposed.
That is why this is no longer simply a conversation about cost. It is a conversation about dependency.
The real problem is reliance, not price
Conventional high-input systems tend to rely on repeated mechanical disturbance, high fertiliser use, and long supply chains. That ties them directly to the fossil-fuel economy in three ways.
Diesel runs the machinery, including cultivation, sowing, spraying, harvesting, and freight. Synthetic nitrogen fertiliser is itself energy-intensive to manufacture. The International Energy Agency has noted that the cost of producing fertiliser is closely linked to energy prices, with natural gas often accounting for 70 to 80% of the operating costs of producing ammonia and urea. When gas prices spike, nitrogen fertiliser prices follow. Fossil fuels also sit behind the transport, handling, and delivery of those inputs. So even when the product exists somewhere in the world, disruption in shipping lanes, refining capacity, geopolitics, or port access can still leave farmers short.
That is exactly what Australian farmers are seeing now. Urea is not scarce because plants forgot how to grow. It is scarce because the farming model has become heavily dependent on an industrial input chain that is vulnerable to war, energy shocks, and global bottlenecks.
Biological systems work differently
Biological and regenerative farmers are not immune from economic pressure. They still use machinery. Many still buy some inputs. Many are still in transition. The difference is that they are working to reduce dependence on imported fertility and repeated disturbance by getting more of the work done by biology.
In practice, that means fewer passes where possible, less reliance on ploughing, more soil cover, more living roots, more biological nutrient cycling, more integration of legumes, composts, manures, multispecies covers, grazing, and residue retention. The aim is functional substitution, not romanticism.
Instead of using steel and chemistry to force the system each season, the biological farmer rebuilds the soil so that more of the fertility, moisture management, and resilience comes from within the farm system itself.
The key point here is one many people miss. Regenerative agriculture aims at a different cost structure and a different risk profile, with better soil as the means rather than the end. A farm that needs heavy tillage, regular synthetic nitrogen, and frequent correction by purchased inputs is more exposed to an energy shock than a farm that has already built biological function, retained residue, reduced disturbance, improved infiltration, and diversified its nutrient pathways.
The logic is already visible in practice
The connection between high energy prices and farming vulnerability is not new. The foreword to Managing Cover Crops Profitably, published by SARE, made the point years ago. Rising energy costs affect farm economics because cover crop economics are rooted in nitrogen savings, reduced trips across the field, and lower fuel exposure. The same source notes that cover crops can reduce costs, increase profits, and help growers save on nitrogen and passes across the paddock.
Australian agriculture has already moved part of the way down this road. The Commonwealth's Securing Australia's Soil documented the rapid uptake of no-till farming practices since the 1980s. GRDC has documented that no-till with stubble retention improves infiltration and water retention, reduces erosion, and reduces labour, machinery, and input costs by removing some operations from the cropping program. GRDC has separately reported that controlled-traffic farming combined with a switch to no-till reduced fuel use for sowing operations, with lower rolling resistance also contributing to lower fuel use across other operations.
In horticulture, Soil Wealth reports that Mulgowie Farming Company trialled strip tillage alongside existing cover cropping at their Maffra farm in Victoria, with the aim of improving infiltration and water-holding capacity, reducing costs, and improving profitability. Mulgowie has also reported that the first three years of low-till management at their Bowen farm produced a 43% reduction in fuel use. In its 2026 Regen Ag Toolbox, Soil Wealth states that over time regenerative practice can save time and money by reducing input needs and increasing yields, and quotes Mulgowie's Andrew Johanson saying their yearly average yields have increased with the adoption of regenerative principles.
These examples matter because they show that reducing dependence is operational, not abstract.
Conventional systems can be productive and still be brittle
Conventional systems have delivered high output. In many districts they have been profitable for long periods. Productivity is one thing. Resilience is another.
A system can be highly productive in good years and still be dangerously exposed when the cost or availability of key inputs changes. That is what brittle means.
If diesel becomes hard to get, a system built around repeated tillage is in trouble. If urea prices double or supply is delayed, a system that depends on synthetic nitrogen to hit its yield target is in trouble. If freight becomes uncertain, every imported fix becomes more expensive and more risky.
Biological systems are not magically exempt from bad seasons. They are, however, generally trying to reduce the number of things that have to go right for the farm to function. That is a major strategic advantage.
Biological farming does not mean zero inputs overnight
This discussion needs balance. It would be wrong to suggest that every regenerative or biological farmer uses no diesel, no fertiliser, and no outside inputs at all. That is not the reality. Many still use some fertiliser. Some use strategic tillage. Some still use herbicides. Some are reducing inputs rather than eliminating them. In lower-rainfall or highly degraded systems, transition takes time and has to be managed carefully.
It is also true that no-till on its own can simply swap diesel dependence for herbicide dependence if it is not paired with good rotations, residue management, biological thinking, and stronger agronomy. GRDC has explicitly warned that no-till brought major benefits but also increased reliance on herbicides and contributed to herbicide-resistant weeds when used narrowly.
So the argument here is more measured. Regenerative farming gives farmers a pathway to reduce structural dependence on fuel-intensive and energy-intensive inputs over time. That is a different claim from "regenerative farming removes all external inputs instantly", and it is a sound one.
What farmers can do now
Farmers do not need to convert the whole farm this season to start reducing exposure. The first step is to identify where the business is most dependent on fossil-fuel-linked inputs. For one farm that may be cultivation. For another it may be synthetic nitrogen. For another it may be freight-intensive bought-in feed. Exposure is reduced by identifying dependency points and tackling them one by one, rather than by slogans.
For croppers, that may mean moving further toward low-disturbance or strip-till systems, retaining stubble, using cover crops where moisture and season permit, and redesigning rotations to include more legumes and more biological activity. For mixed farmers, it may mean using livestock more deliberately to cycle nutrients and reduce waste. For graziers, it may mean improving pasture recovery, lifting groundcover and soil function, and reducing the need for purchased fertility through better biological performance.
For all farmers, the underlying shift is to treat the soil as a working asset rather than a medium that holds plants upright.
The most practical immediate steps are usually the same. Reduce unnecessary tillage. Keep the soil covered. Keep living roots in the ground longer. Build organic matter. Use legumes and biology to capture and cycle nitrogen. Start small enough that mistakes do not threaten the business. Soil Wealth's current Australian guidance makes the same point. Start with small changes and trials, because regenerative practice is system-specific and takes time.
The strategic question farmers should now ask
The question is no longer "what input do I need this season". The better question is "what can I do so I need less of that input next season, and less again after that".
That is the mindset shift.
Every litre of diesel you no longer need, every fertiliser application you can partially replace with biology, every extra millimetre of rain you can hold in the paddock, and every pass you can remove from the system reduces exposure to the next shock.
And there will be a next shock.
Conclusion
Energy and input crises keep hitting farmers because modern agriculture has tied too much of its fertility and field operation to fossil-fuel-dependent supply chains. When energy markets tighten, shipping routes close, or geopolitics intervenes, those systems become vulnerable very quickly. Australia's current diesel and urea anxiety is the latest reminder.
Biological and regenerative systems matter in this context because they shift more of the farm's functioning back into the soil-plant-animal ecosystem itself. They do not remove all risk. They do not eliminate all inputs overnight. They can, however, materially reduce dependence on diesel-heavy cultivation and energy-linked synthetic fertilisers.
The result is more than regenerated soil. It is reduced exposure. In the years ahead, that may prove to be one of the most important economic advantages a farmer can build.
