Regenerative Agriculture – A Critical Review

by Yelto Zimmer , Coordinator, agri benchmark Cash Crop

Regenerative agriculture has become a popular concept, often heralded for its potential to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and promote sustainable farming practices. Proponents advocate for key techniques such as cover cropping and reduced tillage, claiming that these methods can sequester carbon in the soil while improving farm profitability. However, a critical examination of the empirical evidence suggests that these claims are often exaggerated, with limited real-world applicability and effectiveness.

We as agri benchmark Cash Crop are well positioned to contribute to this debate, because we are a global network of crop production economists with access to a vast pool of data on diverse arable farming systems and a strong expertise in crop production systems and GHG mitigation strategies.

Cover cropping, which involves planting crops specifically to protect and enrich the soil during periods when it would otherwise be bare, is a central feature of regenerative agriculture. While cover crops can provide environmental benefits, such as reducing erosion, enhancing soil health, and minimizing nutrient loss, their ability to sequester carbon is frequently overstated. Furthermore, the feasibility of cover crops and hence their potential to reduce GHG emissions depends heavily on regional climatic conditions. For example, in arid regions or locations with short growing seasons, cover crops are impractical or lead to diminished yields.

Reduced tillage is another key component of regenerative agriculture, promoted for its potential to store carbon in the soil and reduce fuel use. By minimizing soil disturbance, advocates argue, reduced tillage helps retain organic matter, leading to improved soil structure and long-term carbon sequestration. However, scientific research challenges this benefit. Usually, the accumulation of carbon in the upper layers of the soil does not translate into overall increases in soil carbon content. Moreover, the technique can lead to other unintended consequences. For instance, reduced tillage often requires increased use of herbicides for weed control, which may have environmental downsides of their own. Additionally, in certain farming systems, such as irrigated rice production, reduced tillage can have negative impacts on crop yields due to the specific requirements for soil management in such environments.

Economic claims about regenerative agriculture are equally problematic. Advocates often argue that these practices can significantly increase farm profitability by reducing input costs, and by providing opportunities to sell carbon credits for sequestered GHGs. However, these assertions are based on optimistic and sometimes unrealistic assumptions. For example, the Boston Consulting Group’s report on regenerative agriculture in Germany suggested that farmers could increase profits by earning GHG credits for cover cropping. Yet, in Germany cover crops are already subsidized by the government, meaning growers cannot expect additional revenue from carbon credits. Moreover, the assumed savings in fertilizer costs are exaggerated, as research has shown only modest reductions in fertilizer needs due to the presence of cover crops. Consequently, most farmers, find that the costs of implementing cover crops outweigh the financial benefits, making these methods less attractive without external subsidies or regulatory pressure.

A significant concern with regenerative agriculture is the issue of “leakage”: If reduced tillage or cover crops leads to lower yields in one area, other regions in the world need to make up for the shortfall, resulting in deforestation or conversion of grassland to arable land, which implies massive GHG emissions. Such leakage effects usually offset any local reductions in GHG emissions by far, undermining the broader goal of mitigating GHG emissions.

Given these limitations, a more promising and practical approach to reducing GHG emissions in crop production lies in improving nitrogen-use efficiency. Nitrogen fertilizers are the major source of GHG emissions in crop production. By enhancing the efficiency with which crops use nitrogen, farmers can reduce the amount of fertilizer needed, leading to both environmental and economic benefits. Unlike cover cropping, which very often requires external subsidies to be economically viable, nitrogen-use efficiency can generate direct financial benefits for farmers without relying on ongoing government support.

Furthermore, both cover crops and reduced or no till are reversal concepts. Each grower can decide to stop apply those practices whenever he or she does so, the carbon accumulated in the soil will then be released gradually to the atmosphere again. Hence, both concepts are risky for the society with regard to climate protection.?

Furthermore, improving nitrogen-use efficiency offers a stable and measurable means of reducing GHG emissions. Nitrogen efficiency improvements provide clear and consistent benefits. Reducing nitrogen losses not only helps to lower GHG emissions but also improves water quality by reducing nutrient runoff, creating additional environmental advantages. Importantly, this approach does not carry the same risks of leakage as regenerative techniques, as it does not typically result in reduced crop yields.

In conclusion, while regenerative agriculture has been heavily promoted for its environmental and economic benefits, its potential to mitigate GHG emissions has been overstated. The techniques associated with regenerative practices, such as cover cropping and reduced tillage, offer limited and often region-specific benefits. Moreover, the economic advantages are frequently based on optimistic assumptions that do not hold up under closer scrutiny. A more reliable and impactful strategy for reducing GHG emissions in agriculture is to focus on improving nitrogen-use efficiency, which provides measurable environmental benefits, aligns with farmers’ economic interests, and avoids the trade-offs associated with regenerative practices. This approach holds greater promise for achieving long-term sustainability in global crop production systems.

A more comprehensive version of this paper including data and literature will be published soon. Contact Yelto Zimmer, at [email protected] to receive a link to the full article.

Learn more about agri benchmark here: https://www.agribenchmark.org/cash-crop/publications-and-projects0.html.