When there are many ways to achieve a desired result of increasing organic matter, moisture retention and weed suppression, we often compare the costs of the ways we can obtain these results or solve the problems.
In fact the cost is often the first thought that comes into our mind.
We make decisions based on the return on investment.
We don’t prune or leaf pluck because it’s a ‘something to do’, we do it because we expect a return on investment from the expense of using the resources and carrying out the tasks.
We may even compare a range of alternatives and look at the opportunity costs of each outcome such as spur pruning or to mechanically vine strip.
But what if we look at the cost of doing nothing?
Many people would suggest that the cost of doing nothing isn’t an option as it doesn’t achieve the desired outcome. When we take another step back some would in fact suggest that the cost would be $0 and result in a saving.
However, when we break it down, the cost of doing nothing isn’t the complete opposite of doing something.
By analysing the problem, we can come up with the impacts it may have if we left it at status quo and how that would open up a world of scenarios including the correlating risks.
Would we even get a harvestable crop? would we get a higher yield? Would the soil degrade to an unproductive low organic matter percentage?
Have you seen the benefits gained by applying organic matter?
Have you undertaken an analysis of not applying organic matter?