Agricultural businesses tend to have very different relationships with consultants. Some do not make an important decision until an external opinion has been brought in. Others are happy to listen, but keep decision making firmly inside the business. And some prefer not to involve consultants at all.

None of these approaches is automatically right or wrong. They are simply different ways of organising responsibility, trust and expertise.

My own view is quite clear. The decisions that shape a business should ultimately sit inside the business. Management and agronomy teams need enough freedom to decide, and enough maturity to be held accountable for those decisions. If a company becomes unable to move without external validation, that may feel safe, but it is rarely a sign of strength.

That does not mean consultants are not useful. In fact, they can be extremely useful. The problem starts when they replace internal thinking instead of strengthening it.

In my view, the best consultants help a business become less dependent on them over time. They help teams understand the basics properly, challenge habits that have been repeated for years without much reflection, and bring perspective from other regions, systems and crops. Sometimes that external view is valuable not because it is revolutionary, but because it allows a team to see its own operation more clearly.

This is particularly relevant in agriculture, where many decisions are taken under pressure, during the season, with limited time and imperfect information. In that environment, it is easy for teams to become trapped between routine and urgency. A good consultant can help create clarity, not by taking control, but by improving the quality of the discussion.

They can also be particularly valuable when a business is moving into unfamiliar territory. When a company is considering a new investment, changing growing system, testing a new variety, entering a different crop, or trying to target a different market window, internal experience may not be enough on its own. That is where outside know how can make a real difference, especially when it helps reduce blind spots before they become expensive mistakes.

Another concern that often comes up is confidentiality. Can consultants steal secrets?

Of course, NDAs exist for a reason, and they matter. They should protect both the company and the consultant. But at agronomic level, I think the idea of “secrets” is often overstated.

Many times, what a grower believes is highly unique is simply normal practice somewhere else in the world. What looks innovative in one region may already be standard in another. In that sense, agriculture today is not really short of information. What is often missing is not access to ideas, but the ability to execute consistently and intelligently.

That is why I tend to think the biggest differences between average and excellent producers are rarely explained by hidden tricks. More often, they come from better genetics, better climate, stronger teams, better timing, and above all, better execution of the basics.

That last point is also the least exciting, which is probably why so many people resist it.

Many growers still hope that the best producers have some hidden agronomic formula, some secret product, or some advanced foliar programme that explains why their plants look better and their productive potential is so much higher. But in many cases, the reality is more frustrating than that. The strongest producers are often not doing mysterious things at all. Sometimes they are just doing simple things better, more consistently, and with fewer errors.

In fact, some of the best growers I know are almost disappointing in that sense. You visit them expecting to find a secret, and instead you find discipline. You expect to discover something exotic, and instead you find good teams, clear priorities and a business that is not distracted by noise.

That is also why consultants can be both valuable and overrated.

Some genuinely help improve the trajectory of a business. They strengthen teams, improve the quality of decisions, bring relevant outside perspective, and help the company move faster with fewer mistakes. Others simply add less than people would like to believe.

In the end, consultants are neither automatically necessary nor automatically useless. Their value depends on how they are used, what they bring, and whether they make the business stronger from the inside. To me, the best consultants succeed when they make themselves less necessary over time, by leaving behind stronger teams, better judgement, and greater internal capability.