Regenerative agriculture is a popular topic in environmental spaces. What are the pros and cons of regenerative agriculture in addressing the climate crisis?
The climate crisis poses a major threat to future food security. In the last 40 years, the earth’s average temperature has risen 2 degrees Fahrenheit and the daily temperatures have seen unprecedented amounts of fluctuation. These increasingly extreme, unpredictable weather conditions threaten farmers’ ability to obtain a sufficient crop yield. Carbon dioxide (CO2) plays a key role in photosynthesis, stimulating the growth of plants. However, in many commonly consumed crops (potatoes, wheat, rice, etc), it can lower protein levels and strip vital minerals from the soil. If CO2 levels continue rising, the deficit of arable soil will make it increasingly difficult, and eventually impossible, to sustain the entire population.
It’s hard to remain optimistic with this looming challenge to global health. A prominent contributor to CO2 production and atmospheric heating is a widespread dependency on unsustainable farming practices, but a new method of farming promises a reduction and even reversal of these tragic impacts: regenerative agriculture.
Regenerative agriculture, pioneered by Zimbabwean biologist Allan Savory, is a compilation of sustainable farming practices intended to improve soil health by maximizing the amount of sequestering carbon dioxide and decreasing the amount of fossil fuels released from the farm.
Regenerative agriculture is not just one technique but the combination of many practices that are intended to restore soil organic matter and biodiversity, thereby improving the cycle of water and carbon dioxide buildup. The advertised goals of regenerative agriculture are to (1) feed the world (2) keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius and (3) halt the loss of biodiversity.
The media surrounding regenerative agriculture is enticingly promising. Many farms have taken on a regenerative agriculture approach, raving about the benefits brought to their soil health, crop yields, and nutrition levels. However, “A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method” by the Centre for Organic Food & Farming offers some pushback on the true extent of the positivity surrounding these practices, examining the research in support of holistic farming. First, a brief look into the many practices that constitute regenerative agriculture.
Tilling is a farming practice that turns the soil to control weeds and pests to prepare the soil for seeding. However, this practice increases the possibility of soil erosion, which is nutrient runoff into nearby waterways. It also releases significant greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as the soil is turned, followed by expulsions of CO2 into the environment.
No-till is pretty much what it sounds like: not disturbing the soil by rotating cover crops with cash crops instead. Crop residue protects plants from extreme weather and traps CO2 in the soil. Increasing sequestered CO2 decreases the amount being released into the air. Additionally, these practices require less machinery and the US Department of Agriculture reported that this saves 282 million gallons of diesel fuel annually. No-tillage is financially enticing to farmers because it minimizes fuel and labor costs. Yet, many hold some reservations as shifting agricultural practices comes with some costs. Continuous no-till systems have yet to be adopted by 79% of farms in the US. Some farms engage in partial tiling systems like seasonal tilling, mulch tilling, or ridge tilling.
Composting is the process of degrading plant and animal waste into organic matter. Compost is then used as an extremely nutrient-rich addition to soil or as soil on its own, which facilitates water intake and nutrient capacity of soil and it fulfills plants' food necessities in the form of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. The repurposing of food waste also decreases its significant carbon footprint.
Of the regenerative agriculture practices, composting most likely has the most regulation and concrete definition. You’ve probably seen a green waste bin on your friend's counter full of food scraps. Maybe you even have one yourself. It’s a practice that allows everyone to feel as though they are contributing to sustainable farming. By utilizing composed waste to improve soil properties, chemical fertilizers become less necessary. Investment in compost the reduction of fertilizer reliance and carbon emissions and increase in job opportunities. Despite this, a 2021 study of 350 farmers at a convention in Morocco found that 80% of respondents were unfamiliar with composting, indicating that it hasn’t been implemented very widely across US farms.
Crop rotation is the practice of alternating the plants on the same plot of soil. This practice improves soil health and increases nutrients in the soil. An example from the Rodale Institution, a non-profit organization that supports research into organic farming, posits that a farmer who plants corn may rotate it with beans, which will provide the soil with the nitrogen it needs to maximize crop yields.
If farmers plant the same crop on the same plot of land repeatedly, the same nutrients are being depleted from the soil continuously. In turn, they wind up utilizing more chemical fertilizers and pesticides to keep yields high and minimize the detriments of pests. These pesticides, however, are plummeting biodiversity, threatening ecosystems and the world’s ability to feed the population substantially.
In contrast, the utilization of crop rotation reduces the need for pesticides as it restores the nutrients that the chemical mixtures are intended to compensate for in a natural way. With less need for fertilizers, the input cost for the farmers also decreases. This just scratches the surface of the benefits. A study from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln found a 29% improved corn yield. When used in tandem with legumes as a cover crop, that increase rose to 49%. The use of crop rotation, in sum, not only provides crops with sufficient nutrients in a less expensive way but even increases output and revenue for farmers.
Cover cropping is the utilization of plants to cover soil rather than to be harvested. This practice improves the structure of soil and increases organic matter, while decreasing the potential for erosion.
Cover cropping has unique benefits, specifically in the restoration of biodiversity, in that it provides a home habitat and sources of nutrition for insects, birds, and other wildlife. It also attracts microbial communities, insects, and other living organisms. Encouraging this natural harmony between the crops and wildlife helps restore biodiversity and preserve the ecosystem.
Additionally, in alignment with the other regenerative agriculture practices, cover cropping does encourage the natural restoration of nutrients back to the soil. They exude nitrogen into the soil for subsequent crops to thrive. By fixing these nitrogen levels, they also reduce the need for fertilizers which, as mentioned, is mutually beneficial for the land and the farmers’ revenue. Though, it might take a few years to recognize these results, so the practice must be consistent.
Finally, soil treated with cover crops may display higher levels of resilience to climate inconsistency. By increasing CO2 levels within the soil, the capacity of agricultural systems to withstand unsuitable weather increases.
The environmental benefits, however, cannot be fully recognized unless cover crops are introduced correctly along with other soil-restoring farming practices.
Agroforestry is the general integration of crops with trees or livestock. This can either be one after another or at the same time. The Billion Agaves Project in Guanajuato, Mexico blends the dense cultivation of agaves, nitrogen-fixing tree species, and holistic livestock grazing. Despite the highly arid land in Guanajuato, the implementation of agroforestry produced a high-forage-yielding system. This project intends to plant one billion agaves in this fashion to restore significant levels of CO2 in the soil.
Silvopasture, a type of agroforestry, is the practice of integrating trees and encouraging the grazing of animals on the same land, which is advertised as beneficial to the soil, crops, and the animals and surrounding nature. It includes the introduction of nitrogen-restoring legumes and rotational grazing systems. Silvopasture intends to have a sufficient amount of trees to benefit the surrounding animals and plants while managing them in a way that still allows them to get nutrition from the sun.
These practices must be intentional and highly monitored – they cannot occur coincidentally to maintain a certain level of moderation and prevent overgrazing. Similarly, planning out the management of the land is vital to maximizing forest products and forages. The results of these practices lead to an optimal environment for livestock (cooler summer environment, shaded by the forest) and higher-value timber products. The plants, like the livestock, also benefit from the environment created by silvopasture because they benefit from a wide range of nutrients from different depths of soil. Finally, the farmers will diversify their income stream, protecting them from market fluctuations.
However, silvopasture revolves around encouraging the presence of livestock – cattle, sheep, goats, horses, etc…If the intention of regenerative agriculture, and therefore silvopasture, is to decrease CO2 released into the air, then increasing the amount of animals that secrete the heating-absorbing chemical would essentially cancel out those positive effects. The EPA estimates that an individual cow produces between 154 to 264 pounds of methane gas per year. Though deeper levels of soil may contain higher CO2 levels, according to a study by the University of New Hampshire, the CO2 in the air is unchanged. Therefore, based on the limited research surrounding silvopasture, it may bring benefits to the soil by sequestering more CO2, but does not appear to bring the significant environmental impacts that it’s advertised to.
The primary intention of regenerative agriculture is to restore nutrients back into the soil naturally, minimizing the utilization of fertilizers, pesticides, or fungicides. These chemical concoctions run off into waterways, contaminating the surrounding water, or get broken down by microbes in the soil, releasing nitrous oxide into the environment. Regenerative agriculture practices are supposed to reduce, and even eliminate, the use of these chemicals, and therefore reduce the expulsion of these harmful gasses into the environment, decreasing the heating. Additionally, regenerative agriculture practices maximize the ability of soil to sequester CO2. Doing this reduces the amount of CO2 in the air and stores it in the soil so it can contribute to the growth of crops rather than heating the surrounding environment. Finally, tilling, the administration of chemical fertilizers, and many other standard practices on farms today use heavy machinery, fueled by diesel. By implementing practices that use less machinery and allow farms to function more naturally, the expulsion of harmful CO2 from the machinery into the environment is decreased. As an additional benefit, farmers are reducing the significant financial burden of fuel.
On the topic of the benefits to farmers, which have been briefly touched on throughout this article, regenerative farming practices have the potential to maximize profits in a few ways. First, soil health is as beneficial for crop yields as it is to the environment. Crops treated with fertilizers, on average, only absorb up to about 50% of nitrogen expelled onto them. When that nitrogen comes straight from the soil, it absorbs much more and therefore is healthier. Securing the health of soil secures the health of crops. Soils used for monocropping, stripped of their nutrients, are no better than dirt, but soils that are rich with nutrients create healthier crops and therefore higher yields and substantially better quality.
The practices outlined above that are associated with regenerative agriculture are, as mentioned, intended to be implemented at the farmer's discretion. Journalist Eilís O’Neill endeavored to investigate the environmental and economic claims made by proponents of regenerative agriculture. His conversation with farmer Doug Pool in episode 43 of Undark, A Reality Check on Regenerative Agriculture, highlighted the largest issue with these promises. Unlike organic farmers, there is no set of rules that must be followed or USDA inspector visits to ensure everything is up to code. Instead, it’s a mindset. According to O’Neill, “Farmers are regenerative if they say they are”. Though bills have been proposed to regulate what constitutes regenerative, farmers are resistant to accepting legislation.
Without regulations, the door is wide open for farms to greenwash their products. Regenerative sounds flashy enough to entice customers, easing their minds about the sustainability of the products they’re buying. A farm that uses every practice outlined above and holds itself to the highest standards could be classified in the same way as a farm that merely partially tills the land. This is part of a larger issue with the lack of standardization behind the language used in the US farming industry. It’s comparable to saying that animals are “free range”.
Another issue with regenerative agriculture is that we’re simply lacking in research to validate the claims made about its potential. There are case studies, some of which are cited above, and some research, but most rely on farmers’ reports. The lack of regulations also means that farmers aren’t required to measure or report the nitrogen and carbon sequestered. Even if we were to conduct more research, without regulations classifying regenerative agriculture, it’s going to be difficult to make definitive claims about its true potential to halt the climate crisis.
In theory, if implemented correctly and consistently, some regenerative agriculture practices have promise. However, that promise simply cannot hold much stake until further research is conducted and regulations are put in place. Additionally, encouraging the presence of animals that secrete methane still increases atmospheric heating.
Indigenous cultures and many countries outside of the West have utilized holistic farming practices for thousands of years. The industrial revolution drove farming practices in the United States to rely on heavy machinery. At the time, this was believed to be necessary to feed the population during both world wars but led to long-term devastating impacts on the environment. If we don’t begin to separate ourselves from this type of farming, there will be insufficient amounts of arable land and the country will find itself with the same conundrum that industrial farming stood to rectify: feeding everyone. Only this time, we won't be able to turn back. In theory, regenerative agriculture holds promise, but those promises don’t mean much unless they are supported by research and legislation, and outlining standards for “regenerative” farms.
Katie Sullivan is a high school student enrolled in the Spring 2024 New Roots Institute fellowship.
