There’s no definition of Regenerative Agriculture — should there be?
I’ve had the privilege of having been to more farms than I can keep track of, in more places than I can remember. But if you asked me which one of those were practicing regenerative agriculture, I’d struggle to answer — in part because there’s no official definition.
What can we all agree on
I’ve dug deep into the many definitions out there, including reading the lengthly standards documents of some of the leading regenerative agriculture standards, and I think a baseline everyone would agree with is the definition I heard Jonathan Lundgren of Ecdysis Foundation deliver a few months ago at a regenerative almond farm I visited:
- No (or minimal) tilling
- Cover crops so there’s no bare soil
- A diversity of plants
- Livestock integrated with crops
- No (or minimal) synthetic chemicals
I love its simplicity — you protect the soil, build up plant diversity, and use animals as your (hungry and poopy) friends.
He said the best indicator of a regenerative farm is that there are no cans lying around — that is, no cans of fertilizer, no cans of pesticide. Another great indicator is the cover crops — I bet you can guess which of these two almond farms is the regenerative one:
Of course it’s not that simple
Wouldn’t it be lovely if it really was that simple and we could just agree on a simple and elegant definition of regenerative agriculture? The issue is that so many other things actually go into a healthy farming system: like, how are the animals treated, what are the animals eating, how are the farmworkers treated, what are they paid, and should everything be organic certified too?
So the result is a range of definitions, ranging from the easy-to-grasp to the extremely comprehensive:
It’s a lot to take in, but when I step back and think about what I like amongst these competing definitions, I find myself appreciating:
- Anything that helps farmers financially — particularly right now, I think a consumer label helps farmers fetch a premium for the costly transition to regenerative practices
- Simplicity — farmers already have to take on workloads that wider in scope than we can imagine, so at least to start, I think less is more
- I love the idea of expert reviewed regenerative plans — regenerative agriculture by its very nature needs to adapt to the local environment, so having a local expert recommend and approve practices makes a lot of sense, and will help farmers out
- Beyond the essentials, a lofty ideal for us all to chase is defined by Regenerative Organic Certified and Certified Regenerative
There is a lot to like, and in reviewing these standards I was amazed at how well they captured my intuition of what a regenerative farming system should look like.
Now a couple things that I like a little less:
- Dependance on a consumer label — even the most successful food label, the USDA organic certification, only represents 6% of all food bought in grocery stores in the U.S. So any system that is counting on consumers to change farming practices I think will fall far short of our goals
- Extensive rules and compliance documents — they just inherently exclude people, either because farmers just don’t have the capacity to understand and/or meet every requirement (think of a barely literate coconut farmers in the Philippines, for example), or they don’t have the resources to
Overall though, way more to like than to be concerned about.
So what should we focus on
There are two things I think about most given where we are in the world right now:
The first is climate change, and most greenhouse emissions in agriculture are caused by synthetic fertilizer and cow burps. Yep, fertilizer is a petrochemical byproduct, and its use in growing our food and feed for animals is the biggest source of Nitrous Oxide (N2O); and cow burps while digesting are the biggest source of methane (CH4). So in regenerative agriculture I think we should be most focused on eliminating synthetic fertilizer, which also means that the feed for animals on regenerative farms should be grown regeneratively.
Second I think about farmers incomes. I have yet to come across a farmer who is thriving financially, and if we want to continue to eat food we need to have happy farmers. Regenerative farming *should* be more profitable for farmers in the end (more to come on that topic), but at least in the short-term it isn’t. So anything that reduces costs and increases revenues for farmers is great. In general, farm inputs, like fertilizer and pesticides, are about 30% of farmer operational costs — so if we can focus on eliminating those first we have a huge potential win. And in the short-term I think that consumer label helps a lot too in increasing revenues.
So do we need a definition of regenerative agriculture?
Yes, we definitely do.
Because if we don’t, then corporate greenwashing can run amok. I’ve already seen a plant-based meat that used soy beans claiming to be regenerative — just because they used soy beans, which are a common cover crop. And ADM, the $94 Billion food trader, has started down a regenerative journey by claiming to have 2 million acres under regenerative practices. But if you read their definition, it only covers 3 of the 5 most essential elements of regenerative agriculture: no integration of livestock, and no requirement to greatly reduce fertilizer and pesticides.
California and other jurisdictions around the world are working on official definitions, which is great.
I also wonder if there’s room to create a standard that starts with the 5 basic principles I outlined at the start, and allowed farmers to self verify — perhaps by sharing sensor and testing data. This could then limit the hassles of compliance, and maximize the benefit of a consumer label. If anyone wants to work on that, let’s chat!
What next
I have so many more topics I want to dive into — the economics for farmers, tools that can make the transition to regenerative easier, the role of corporate commitments, funding sources for farmers, what could catalyze more growth, and more.
Is there something you’d like me to explore deeper? I’d love to know!
In gratitude,
Sri