Revisiting the movement: Regenerative agriculture

Challenges of regenerative agriculture

I do not think you would find many people who would disagree with the broad principles described above. You may find that there are additional practices that some would advocate for, but no list is ever exhaustive. So why then is there so much push-back on regenerative agriculture? I do not have a definitive answer, but I would speculate a few things.

The goal of reducing inputs is obviously inconvenient to suppliers and resellers of these inputs. I do not believe that there are necessarily nefarious intentions from people advocating for farming inputs. On the contrary, I believe many good people are advocating for their products because they really do believe that what they are selling can help farmers. The challenge I encounter often lies in the lack of recognition that each product is only really helpful in certain contexts, and is very seldom applicable across all farming systems and circumstances. But a general approach, such as regenerative agriculture, which advocates for the aggressive reduction in inputs, threatens these people’s livelihoods, and therefore they would naturally kick against it.

There are people, especially traditional soil scientists and agronomists, who philosophically disagree with the broad approach advocated for by regenerative agriculture. The main sticking point seems to be that the people challenging regenerative agriculture are completely sceptical of it being a sustainable solution to global food security. They just do not believe that it is possible to drastically reduce inputs and sustain food production at a level that will feed the world. This is where there is definitely conflicting evidence. It would seem as though, whichever side you choose in the debate, you will be able to find compelling scientific and anecdotal evidence for your perspective.

This is a complex topic that deserves a long discussion in itself. In essence, you have two perspectives. One party believes that sufficient food cannot be produced economically without agrochemical inputs (e.g., tillage, fertiliser and pesticides), since these are the drivers of higher yields. The other party believes that such inputs, and the associated practices, will result in such a level of land degradation and cost of production that sufficient food will not be able to be produced sustainably in the future. Both sides seem to be able to find evidence to support their claims. Thus, there is a bit of a belief-system issue here which is not easily solved. In addition to these two perspectives, you have another two non-associated perspectives. The one that there is sufficient food produced, but not sufficient distribution of this food to alleviate hunger, and the other that there is not sufficient food to support future demand, and therefore there needs to be an increase in agricultural production. As I mentioned, this is obviously a complex topic, which I am not doing justice to, but the point here being that it is an additional component to the: “what is the best approach to food production to ensure food security?” debate.

To me, this is indicative of the highly complex nature of farms and farming. I believe the warnings against farmers blindly following practices that have been implemented in contexts that do not relate to the one they are in, especially in terms of another country, are valid. On the other hand, I believe that traditional academics and agricultural research is also missing the progress that has been made on many farms. The outcome of this is that I have become a proponent of encouraging farmers to experiment with practices that resonate with them on a piece of land where they are willing for the experiment to fail. And further, that they do not draw broad conclusions from such an experiment, but rather that they treat all experimentation as continuous learning.

People who advocate for regenerative agriculture often use terminology such as “farming with nature”. Although I understand that what people probably mean by this is to farm in a way that facilitates, protects and benefits from ecosystem services and mutualist relationships where possible instead of artificial means. That is a noble approach, but it is not the impression that I often get. I have more often than not, gotten the impression that people are talking about farming in a way that is directly consistent with how nature functions. This is one of the sticking points for me when I start to disconnect with regenerative agriculture proponents. I believe that it is important to acknowledge that all agroecosystems are no longer natural ecosystems. As soon as we started putting up fences, planting foreign plants, introducing foreign animals, and implementing any other form of management, these stopped being natural ecosystems. In many farming contexts, the climate and geography do not facilitate optimised agricultural production. Examples of this are when you find large irrigated areas producing high biomass in desert areas or areas that have inherently poor soil which now support high-yielding crops and/or pastures. These areas have been manipulated, either by the addition of nutrients to the soil and/or the addition of water. In such areas, the goal cannot be to restore these farming systems to their natural state, as this would preclude profitable farming from taking place. Although this said, I do not believe that any of the principles of regenerative agriculture are not applicable to the successful transition towards more sustainable farming in these areas. I think the problem arises from the way that people talk about regenerative agriculture, rather than the principles on which it is based.