Three different views of regenerative agriculture

In case you haven’t heard, “regenerative” is the new “sustainable” when it comes to buzzwords in the agriculture space. (Although the concept for regenerative agriculture isn’t new at all). I’m constantly marveling at how one word can have such varied meanings depending on whom you are speaking with. If you aren’t familiar with the term you can think of regenerative as essentially a step up from sustainability. Rather than just sustaining the land, or maintaining the status quo, the concept of regenerative agriculture is about adopting agricultural practices that improve the land, soil health, water quality, biodiversity, etc.

Depending on the type of farmer or foodie or agricultural innovator you are talking to, you will hear different answers defining practices and farming systems that regenerative agriculture can encompass. It is almost always a nuanced conversation. Below is a short synopsis of three recent conversations and their respective viewpoints. All about regenerative agriculture. And all with their own questions and conundrums related to how we think about regenerative agriculture

Regenerative agriculture from the commodity farmer’s perspective:

I recently had a conversation with a commodity grower in the Pacific Northwest that manages thousands of acres of seed crops, grains, legumes, and a couple of other crops grown at scale. When I was talking to this farmer he was sitting in the field looking out at one of John Deere’s newest combines (a machine with a price tag of over one million dollars ). I’ve spent a lot of my career talking to commodity farmers like him, who in my opinion are largely misunderstood by the public. Most commodity farms are owned and operated by families. Oftentimes these businesses are cash poor with all of their wealth tied up in equipment and land, and many years they are operating in the red, at the mercy of commodity market pricing, the weather, and many other external factors. Many of these farmers care deeply about preserving their land and maintaining their family’s way of life. 

This farmer had adopted many regenerative practices on his operation and considered himself a regenerative farmer. He is no-till, takes extra steps to ensure that chemicals stay out of waterways by not spraying the edges of a field, plants riparian buffers (a term for planting certain types of shrubbery along waterways to help reduce run-off and erosion), rotates his crops, and focuses on building local pollinator habitats.

Yet, he is still a commodity operator that at the end of the day has a focus on efficiency. To make the economics work for this type of operation the key is churning out high yields per acre, keeping weed-free fields, and mechanizing production as much as possible. He can’t afford to have weeds in his fields when he has a contract to grow a crop for seed. One of the most important aspects of seed production is genetic purity and ensuring the harvest is free from foreign material.

If this farmer wanted to move away from using synthetic chemicals he wouldn’t be able to keep farming using his current system. A wholesale change like this would involve a steep learning curve to learn new practices, likely some new equipment, and a changed business model. If this farmer wanted to get out of the commodity agriculture business entirely, he wouldn’t even know where to begin. All of his money is tied up in expensive machinery, inputs, and land. 

These types of farms simply don’t see a feasible way to switch to a different type of agricultural system without truly starting from scratch. Not to mention, that many of the rural communities that have grain elevators to take commodity crops don’t have a market for specialty, niche crops. What do you suggest this farmer should do? How does a farm like this turn away from generations of knowledge and start from scratch with a completely different type of farming? 

Regenerative agriculture from the small-scale rancher’s perspective:

A couple of weeks ago I was talking to a pasture-based poultry and beef producer that has a direct-to-consumer business, selling through a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) meat share and through online orders. They are a first-generation farmer that wanted to have a different lifestyle. They wanted to work with their hands, work with the land, and be connected to where their food comes from. They rotate their beef cattle to different parts of their fields multiple times a week to improve pasture health. They not only view their job as a farmer and a meat producer but also as a caretaker of their land. They view their animals as a tool to help them improve soil health, sequester carbon (take carbon out of the atmosphere), and improve the biodiversity and health of their pastures. They have a strong relationship with their customers and community and give at least one cow to a local food bank each year.

This producer uses all non-GMO and organic feed when supplemental grain has to be used, but they finish all their cattle on pasture. By finishing on pasture rather than taking the cattle to a feedlot, they have to keep the animals for an extra year. They struggle to get a loan from their local ag lender because beef isn’t “supposed” to take that long to deliver it to market. This farmer relies on a price premium from their customers, which are a combination of well-off families and upscale restaurants. They are doing right by their land and right by their animals.

But can this type of farm support our population given the current levels of meat consumption? Is there a way to scale this type of farm and maintain the same high standard of regenerative practices? How many small-scale ranchers would we need to meet demand? And if this type of meat can only be for the wealthy consumer, are we ok with that? 

In my opinion, these types of farms are the ones actually following the truest meaning of the word regenerative. But can it scale to the levels necessary to feed our population?

Regenerative agriculture from the agtech employee’s perspective: 

The agriculture technology field is booming. I’m an agtech nerd and subscribe to at least three weekly newsletters that tell me everything happening in the food and agtech space. I am constantly seeing the latest news headlines about the way every single agriculture and food company is “leading the way” in regenerative agriculture. On one hand, you see announcements from companies like Cargill, Bayer, and PepsiCo, committing to supporting America’s regenerative farmers and reducing their carbon footprint. These types of companies are making commitments as marketing and PR moves, often without a path to actually achieve their commitments to regenerative sourcing. What was called a “sustainable” practice yesterday is suddenly branded as a “regenerative” practice today. Greenwashing is prolific (greenwashing is a term used when companies represent an environmental image through their messaging, but don’t actually take the steps to improve their environmental impact). But at least the conversation is being had at the broader level, even if their motives and outcomes are questioned?

While I question these commitments and the greenwashing that follows, I am aware that they open the conversation to a much broader group of the population than just foodies and environmentalists. Innovation and growth in agriculture technology designed to reduce the impact of agriculture are growing thanks to the commitments of these large players.

New agtech companies are coming in and improving monitoring, data collection, analysis and more. The greenwashing and hypocrisy of these companies claiming to support regenerative agriculture, while also selling synthetic chemicals and petroleum-based fertilizers, is mind-boggling. But don’t we at least want our commodity agriculture system to be taking steps in the right direction? Isn’t some improvement better than none at all? How do we expect big change without the policy changes to also support it?

As someone that has worked in the agtech industry both on the large scale/commodity system, and supporting more localized food systems, I still don’t have answers to many of the questions posed above. While I believe that the small-scale regenerative rancher is the one doing it right, I also can’t help but wonder if we would be able to feed our population made up only of small to medium-scale producers. I think the answer is yes, but that opens the door to a whole other set of questions on lifestyle, land use and a shift back towards an agrarian lifestyle. 

So you see, the questions and considerations are endless. There is no black and white when it comes to these issues. It has to be a nuanced conversation every time. If you are one of those people that wants to have this conversation, my virtual door is always open.