Conventional or 'regenerative' farming?

Regenerative agriculture might be a hot topic, but there is no clear definition of what the practice entails, says soil scientist Dr Neil Miles. Also, one has to wonder just how bad’ conventional farming practices really are.

- 

The past decade has seen food companies and retailers demanding ‘regenerative production practices’. Furthermore, there is a distinct antipathy to what is disparagingly termed ‘conventional’ or ‘industrial’ agriculture. The rhetoric is increasingly alarmist, with statements such as “The food system is broken” and “Agriculture is limping on and possibly heading towards an abyss” characterising discussions.

Regenerative agriculture is seen as the way to overcome this perceived state of affairs, while at the same time minimising the impact of agriculture on climate change.

But what exactly is meant by ‘regenerative agriculture’? And are the concerns regarding ‘conventional’ agriculture valid?

A survey of the literature indicates that no clear and concise definition of regenerative agriculture exists, with the term being interpreted in sometimes very different ways. This vagueness is often a source of frustration for farmers and scientists. As Ken Giller, professor of plant production systems at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, pointedly asks: “What exactly needs to be regenerated?”

It would appear that the thrust of regenerative agriculture tends to coalesce around the following agronomic practices:

• Building soil health (minimising tillage, maintaining soil cover, building soil carbon levels, promoting the soil biology);
• Minimising external inputs;