Few topics in agriculture generate as much confusion today as regenerative agriculture. Speak to 10 people, and you’ll likely get 10 different definitions. Read a few articles, attend a conference, or sit through a retailer sustainability presentation and the waters become even murkier. What started as a practical farming system has, in many cases, been repackaged into a marketing term, stretched well beyond its original purpose and increasingly used as a badge for everything from carbon claims to biodiversity targets.
A recent conversation with a land agent perfectly illustrated the problem.
“The difficulty my clients have with moving into regen is the yield reduction that comes with it,” he explained.
My immediate response was simple: why should they be experiencing a yield reduction?
The answer was revealing. Several farms had dramatically reduced or eliminated crop inputs on the assumption that this was what regenerative agriculture required. Predictably, output suffered. Yet somewhere along the line, the idea has taken hold that regenerative farming is simply about using less fertiliser, fewer pesticides and fewer inputs overall.
It isn’t.
In fact, what is often being described sounds far closer to an organic system than a regenerative one. If a farm intends to eliminate synthetic inputs, there is a strong argument for pursuing certified organic production, where at least there are established conversion schemes and potential market premiums to offset the transition.
Regenerative agriculture was never founded on the principle of removing inputs. Reduced input use, improved water quality, enhanced biodiversity, carbon sequestration and cleaner air are all potential benefits, but they are outcomes, not the primary objective.
At its core, regenerative agriculture is about rebuilding soil function through increasing soil carbon. The aim is to create healthier, more resilient soils that cycle nutrients efficiently, retain water effectively and support greater biological activity. Achieving that requires a systems approach guided by soil health principles, not an arbitrary reduction in crop nutrition.
Indeed, successful regenerative farming often demands the use of inputs. The difference is that inputs are applied strategically and efficiently, rather than by routine. In many respects, regen resembles what used to be called the “third way” between conventional and organic systems: productive agriculture supported by thoughtful management of both soil biology and crop nutrition.
Carbon alone isn’t enough
Building soil carbon is central to regenerative agriculture, but carbon cannot work in isolation.
For biomass production, whether above or below ground, nitrogen remains essential. The challenge is not whether crops need nitrogen; they do. The challenge is determining where that nitrogen comes from and how efficiently it is used.
A grassland farm I know provides an interesting example. For around 15 years it has operated with virtually no external inputs. Large areas sit within stewardship options comprising low-input grassland, flowering plots and bird-food mixes. Livestock grazing is limited and generally extensive, while some grassland is cut periodically for hay.
The intention has always been to improve biodiversity.
However, over time the opposite effect appears to be occurring. Grass growth has steadily declined as fertility reserves have been depleted. More surprisingly, biodiversity has also begun to diminish. Without meaningful carbon and nitrogen cycling, the biological engine that supports soil life gradually runs out of fuel.
Healthy soil biology depends on food. Whether we are discussing bacteria, fungi, earthworms or larger soil organisms, the principle remains the same: if we want living soils, we have to feed them.
Are inputs really the enemy?
Another widespread misconception is that all modern agricultural inputs are inherently damaging to soil health.
The reality is far more nuanced.
Some of the farms demonstrating the strongest improvements in measured soil carbon, earthworm counts and biological activity over the past decade have not significantly reduced inputs at all. Instead, they have focused on improving soil structure, reducing disturbance and managing inputs more intelligently.
Certainly, individual products can have detrimental effects. Some herbicides and fungicides have been shown to negatively affect earthworm populations and should be used carefully. However, broad statements that all crop protection products destroy soil biology simply don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Most herbicides and fungicides have relatively limited long-term impacts on overall soil biological function when used appropriately. Likewise, while large single applications of nitrogen can create stress within both soil and crop systems, splitting applications into smaller doses improves nitrogen use efficiency while reducing potential impacts.
The critical point is that soil health is influenced far more by system management than by blanket assumptions about any one input.
The biology obsession
Soil biology is another area where enthusiasm frequently gets ahead of scientific reality.
We regularly hear claims that biological inoculants, microbial brews and various liquid biology products can replace significant quantities of nitrogen fertiliser. It’s an attractive idea. Unfortunately, practical results are often far less impressive than the marketing.
The problem is straightforward: soil biology is largely controlled by environment.
A microbe produced in a warm, carbon-rich brewing vessel faces a dramatically different environment once it is sprayed through a nozzle onto a field. The same applies to organisms introduced via composts. Conditions within a compost heap bear little resemblance to those experienced after spreading and incorporation.
This is not an argument against compost. It remains an excellent source of carbon, available nutrition and organic matter. It helps feed the soil ecosystem. But expecting introduced biology to substantially transform a poor soil environment is another matter entirely.
Even under favourable conditions, biological nitrogen fixation and nutrient cycling from microbial products are unlikely to supply the quantities of nitrogen required to support modern crop yields on their own.
What we can influence is the environment those organisms inhabit. Better soil structure, improved aeration, enhanced water infiltration and a consistent supply of carbon provide the conditions under which beneficial biology can thrive naturally.
The missing piece
Perhaps the greatest contradiction within modern regenerative agriculture is the obsession with measuring microbial diversity while often neglecting the factor that matters most: habitat.
If we want healthy, functioning soils, fungi are particularly important. Fungal networks play a critical role in nutrient cycling, soil aggregation and carbon storage. Yet fungi thrive best in soils that are stable, well-structured and largely undisturbed.
This leads to an uncomfortable conclusion.
If the goal is genuine soil health, reducing soil disturbance should be the priority. Continual cultivation disrupts fungal networks, accelerates organic matter breakdown and diminishes many of the biological processes regenerative agriculture seeks to encourage.
For all the discussion around cover crops, biological products, carbon markets and input reduction, the reality is that maintaining living roots and minimising cultivation remain among the most powerful tools available.
The irony is that regenerative agriculture is not particularly complicated. It is not about eliminating inputs, buying the latest biological product or chasing fashionable sustainability claims. It is about building a system that returns carbon to the soil, supports nutrient cycling and creates the conditions in which soil biology can flourish.
Everything else is secondary.