Regenerative agriculture, a hype?

An agriculture that increases biodiversity, creates fertile soils, captures and retains carbon, eliminates pollution of water and air, minimizes waste, uses only rainwater, uses only renewable energy and shares the lessons learned and involves society in the business... Who doesn't want that?

With this message, all kinds of new initiatives are starting in the Netherlands (and worldwide) to renew current agricultural practice towards regenerative agriculture. An agriculture without negative side effects. After all, current agriculture causes soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, pollution of air, water and soil and destroys the quality of the landscape?

As a soil scientist and agronomist, I always get the itch when I read these caricatures. Yes, there are major concerns about the quality of the living environment. And yes, the agricultural sector must innovate in order to make a positive contribution to this. At the same time, a large part of the agricultural companies farms in accordance with 'Good Agricultural Practice' and thus consciously takes care of the quality of the living environment.

And perhaps even more important: agriculture is necessary to produce sufficient and healthy food and this 'task' inevitably has environmental consequences. We don't live in a perfect world... Is that the reason behind the hype around regenerative agriculture? Because it seems to offer solutions to an unsolvable problem?

Recently I came across a constructive review by Prof. Giller and colleagues entitled 'Regenerative Agriculture: an agronomic perspective† Very valuable. They conclude that many agricultural measures promoted as regenerative have been central to the canon of 'Good Agricultural Practice' for decades and as such are not new. In addition, the impact of regenerative measures can vary greatly over time and space: there is therefore no 'one size fits all' solution. The authors of this paper argue that the current positioning of 'regenerative agriculture' as a solution to the agricultural crisis (for soil, biodiversity, climate and water) confuses the debate and diverts attention from the real challenges. I will take you along with a number of lines of thought from this review.

What does Regenerative Agriculture want?
While reading the many websites, project proposals and reports about Regenerative Agriculture, a number of spearheads emerge. This 'new form' of agriculture is almost always seen as a solution to halt the decline in soil quality, to breathe new life into the role of soil life, to supply extra organic matter (and thus contribute to climate problems). and to reverse the major decline in biodiversity.

Thus, 3 assumptions are made. First of all, the assumption that soil quality and biodiversity in the Netherlands are actually going bad. Secondly, that agricultural practice is the main cause of this. Thirdly, that (only) regenerative measures help to restore and improve quality. Let's run through these assumptions.

Assumption 1. Agricultural soil and biodiversity are not doing well
How good or bad is the agricultural soil? In a previous series on the quality of Dutch agricultural soils I have shown that the description of the soil quality as 'emaciated, desiccated and poisoned' is rather a caricature than gives a good picture of the real situation. Farmers generally take very good care of their soil.

There are worries, in particular around the prevention of soil compaction and the spread of soil-related diseases and pests. With regard to biodiversity, there are studies that show that diversity on agricultural plots has decreased. It is evident that there is a relationship with the standardization of the landscape, land use and the use of crop protection products. However, it is unclear to what extent this narrowing of the soil food web leads to a decrease in the resilience of the soil and the ecosystem services that the soil provides.

Much scientific research on this subject is statistical in nature and shows that natural ecosystems differ from grassland and arable land. How bad that is is unclear. It is not known whether these differences are also agriculturally disadvantageous, and mechanistic explanations for the differences in soil biodiversity are for the time being hypotheses that call for new insights.

Assumption 2. Agriculture is the cause
Intensive land use is seen as the cause of environmental problems. A fair observation in my opinion. There are dozens of studies that show that regions with many monocultures are more susceptible to (spread) diseases. Various meta-analyses show, for example, that the use of pesticides is partly responsible for the decline in the insect population. Practical experience on many agricultural companies also confirms this.

It is also evident that there is a major decline in biodiversity worldwide, although this decline is not only the result of the industrialization of agriculture, but also of further urbanization. It is rightly pointed out, however, that in current agricultural practice there is a lot of conscious thought being given to soil management and fertilization in order to improve the quality of the agricultural soil and to keep it suitable for agricultural use. This begs the question: if the latter is true, is agriculture possible without environmental problems?

Assumption 3. Regenerative measures help
Within regenerative agriculture, various measures are proposed to increase soil quality and soil biodiversity. The most important measures are: a diverse crop plan, extensive use of organic fertilizers (and variation therein), use of (mixed) green manures, as well as avoiding tillage, fertilizers and crop protection products.

Well, the first 4 measures are already part of 'Good Agricultural Practice' and are applied to the majority of agricultural companies. At the same time, it is a utopia that this will only improve the quality of the living environment: many regenerative measures that are very positive for soil life can also have a negative effect on leaching, nitrous oxide emissions and crop production.

In addition, the use of fertilizers and crop protection products is an agricultural requirement to produce sufficient and healthy food. These agents are not applied without thought in conventional agriculture; there is often a classical agricultural approach to 'integrated pest and disease management', which focuses on minimizing resources for maximum results.

Nutrients are of a different order than pesticides. Certainly in countries where the soils are not as fertile as in the Netherlands. Most Dutch agricultural soils are rich in nutrients and the organic matter content is (far) above the agricultural optimum. A generic statement to abolish fertilizer or crop protection does not take sufficient account of the fact that soils differ greatly in quality, as well as that these agents are needed in many places in the world to improve soil quality (nutrients) and to produce food for life (nutrients and crop protection). 

Looking forward
This evaluation shows that together we are faced with an almost impossible choice. Every form of agriculture has inevitable trade-offs on the quality of the living environment and at the same time there is a growing demand for more and healthy food. How should agriculture deal with the ever-growing world population, a population that demands sufficient and healthy food?

From an agricultural point of view, there are then 2 options: we increase the productivity per hectare (and leave the natural surface intact) or we increase the agricultural area (and accept a lower productivity because of the environmental gain). In both situations there are adverse effects for both biodiversity and carbon storage in the soil. 

At the same time, this problem should not paralyze us. The fact that the relationship between agriculture and the quality of the living environment depends on agricultural management also offers opportunities and solutions. By translating the goals for improving circularity, combating climate change, improving water quality and quantity, improving soil quality, restoring biodiversity and improving plant and animal health into concrete actions on the farm. Then it becomes clear that not everything can be done in the same place and that producing healthy food inevitably has negative consequences.

Customization per company
We don't live in an ideal world. But it is precisely in this translation into actions that it also becomes clear that it is possible to protect the quality of the living environment as much as possible. Every action by the farmer, such as soil management (plowing, liming, draining, irrigating) and the use of crop protection products and fertilizers (fertilizer, slurry, compost, residual flows) as well as the strategic choice of a business style (extensive or intensive) has an impact. This also means that the farmer is at the helm of solutions. 

As far as I'm concerned, the whole hype surrounding regenerative agriculture is a plea for good customization for each company. And that customization can take shape at all kinds of companies: from intensive to extensive, from organic to conventional, and even at regenerative and nature-inclusive companies. But let's avoid mutual caricatures, stay realistic in future expectations and encourage farmers to continuously learn and strive for sustainable growth. 

Gerard Rose

Senior project manager in soil, water and agriculture at the Nutrient Management Institute (NMI).

© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.