As regenerative agriculture has risen in popularity recently so have the number of books, journal articles, podcasts, and documentaries exploring the topic. There are plenty of resources discussing its potential benefits and outcomes and what public policy or private sector initiatives could help facilitate the adoption of its practices, but throughout my research, I have come across far fewer articles and resources that discuss what the transition to regenerative really looks if you’re a farmer. What does the process of transitioning from a “conventional” farm to a “regenerative” farm really entail; what are the costs, what are the steps involved, and what does this process require of farmers?
First, we must clarify what is meant by the terms “conventional agriculture” and “regenerative agriculture.” Conventional agriculture in this instance refers to farming systems that utilize high levels of external inputs (such as fertilizers and pesticides), leave the soil bare (by tilling the soil and leaving fields fallow), and have minimal on-farm diversity. In the case of livestock farms, conventional grazing methods refers to continuous grazing. Regenerative agriculture on the other hand refers to systems that aim for low to no external inputs, maintain soil cover and living roots (using no-till and planting cover crops), rotate crops, and tend to be more diversified (with agroforestry, perennials, diverse field margins, etc.), and in the case of livestock, systems which use rotational grazing.
To begin answering the question of what it looks like to move from a conventional system to a regenerative one–I first began looking at some of the online resources and consultancy programs that support farmers in this process. The Rodale Institute has an online course and a consultancy program on transitioning to organic and regenerative organic practices. Check out their webinar videos here, where they cover topics such as no-till agriculture, cover cropping, composting, diversifying grain rotations, and more. In their webinar titled “Transitioning from a Conventional to Organic Production System” they discuss their consultancy program and begin to shed light on some of the challenges and benefits of transitioning away from conventional agriculture. According to the webinar one of the biggest concerns farmers have about changing methods is how to manage weeds. By changing methodologies there can be concerns about how to manage pests and diseases without using inputs or how to manage weeds without tilling. There can also be concerns about crop yields without nitrogen fertilizers.
Many regenerative practices are supposed to work in unison to solve some of these problems. For example, the removal of chemical nitrogen fertilizer can be then replaced by leguminous cover crops with fix nitrogen, and the addition of organic amendments such as compost or manure which can provide nutrients in a closed loop system, without relying on fossil fuel-derived inputs. The removal of pesticides may lead to an abundance of pest populations that can cause damage to crops–but through crop rotation, intercropping, increased on-farm diversity, and the use of hedgerows and diversified field margins, crops can be protected from these pests–either through camouflage, repelling, or the increased presence of natural predators/parasites that can control pest populations. The removal of herbicides and reducing tilling can lead to higher weed populations, but they can also be suppressed by growing cover crops rather than leaving the field fallow, and then leaving the cover crop residues in the field after they are terminated to suppress weeds. There is also some evidence that rotating livestock can help farmers reduce the need for inputs such as veterinary parasiticides, as rotation can also help reduce animals’ exposure to certain worms and parasites.
While regenerative practices can in theory work in unison to build soil health and mimic nature to combat issues such as pest prevalence, the challenge of course is that implementing many changes at once can be both labor and cost-intensive. This could mean high labor inputs and high costs of new equipment. New equipment could include cover crop seeds, rollers to terminate cover crops, no-till planters, perhaps other types of no-till and herbicide-free weeding equipment such as flame weeders, fencing for rotational grazing, plants for diversifying field margins or riparian buffers, and perhaps the cost of hiring a consulting or enrolling in a course to learn more about these new practices. The labor involved could be time spent attending trainings, developing a regenerative plan, researching what types of cover crops would be best suited in your region, putting up fencing to create paddocks for livestock, conducting pest and weed checks to observe how your land is responding to the change in techniques, more time spent weeding (especially if you do not have a highly mechanized farm), the list goes on.
All of these upfront labor and financial costs also come without the immediate benefit of regenerative premiums. While regenerative certification schemes do exist to help support and promote farmers using these practices, as was discussed in a previous blog post many of these schemes require other certifications as well such as a pre-existing organic certification or animal welfare certification. These certifications cost time and money–from the date of your last application of a prohibited input it will take 3 years before you can become certified organic and begin reaping the financial gains. Given that some regenerative certifications are closely linked to other certifications there could be a similar lapse time involved where farmers may be managing their fields regeneratively without benefitting from any premiums on their products. The webinar from the Rodale Institue however suggests that farmers who become certified organic are 3-6 times more profitable largely as a result of premiums on organic products, but there can be a number of concerns and challenges along the way before being eligible for any certifications.
It is of course difficult to describe in any concise way how the transition from “conventional” to “regenerative” would look at the farm level since the process differs depending on the farm type, size, and location. For commodity grains it could mean transitioning to no-till, relying on cover crops for weed suppression, and having to invest in cover crop rollers and no-till planters. For livestock farmers, it could mean installing paddock fencing and researching rotational grazing patterns to understand how frequently to rotate your animals and how long to rest your paddocks. For smaller vegetable farms it could mean more intercropping and hand weeding to combat weeds and pests and setting up a composting operation to amend the soil. There is of course no clear single answer. However, it is clear that transition can be challenging in that it could entail many changes and new equipment. It is important that conversations about regenerative agriculture from policymakers and scientists include the perspective of farmers to better understand how the scaling up of regenerative practices affects their work.
References
Gosnell, H., Gill, N., & Voyer, M. (2019). Transformational adaptation on the farm: Processes of change and persistence in transitions to ‘climate-smart’ regenerative agriculture. Global Environmental Change, 59, 101965. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101965
Lal, R. (2020). Regenerative agriculture for food and climate. Journal of soil and water conservation, 75(5), 123A-124A.
Malriat, S. (2022). Webinar: Transitioning from a Conventional to Organic Production System [Webinar]. The Rodale Institute. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a0p22tdzIQ&ab_channel=RodaleInstitute
White, C. (2020). Why Regenerative Agriculture? The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 79(3), 799-812. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12334