The combination of the Oxford Farming Conference and the Oxford Real Farming Conference in the first week of January provides plenty of opportunities to hear thought-provoking speakers.    And the thought arising for this attendee from this January’s conferences is that 2024 will be the crunch year for regenerative agriculture.

What does that mean?  At the moment, regenerative agriculture is seen as a broad church.  It encompasses a whole number of different practices which broadly have at their heart the enhancement of soil fertility.  That includes a focus on keeping the soil covered throughout the year, keeping living roots in the ground, a significant diminution in the chemical intervention and the integration of livestock into arable systems.  Even trying to describe it is open to question, as the difficulties that will be faced by many arable farmers attempting to integrate livestock into a modern farming system, with all of the infrastructure and management changes that implies, means that this element can take a back seat or be seen as a higher echelon form of regenerative agriculture, only capable of being achieved by the few. 

From most commentators the position has been clear - regenerative agriculture is a broad church, more of an approach or attitude to farming than a particular prescribed process that must be followed.  And in particular, regenerative agriculture is not a certified and regulated standard to be seen as comparable to organic production. 

But this year seems likely to test that, as a consequence of the success of the concept of regenerative agriculture.  In part that success may be due to how easy it is for anyone to label at least some of their processes as regenerative, which may be either a good thing, encouraging improvements in the overall way in which Britain is farmed, or an easy instance of greenwashing, depending upon your perspective. 

Hearing “regenerative” tagged to the front of “agriculture” so often that use of “agriculture” on its own has become much rarer provokes a concern that this may be a bandwagon.  As regenerative agriculture develops, the issue of its credibility as a process, and what barriers there are to producers calling themselves regenerative agriculture will come to the forefront. 

This was made apparent by one of the partner sessions at the Oxford Farming Conference, hosted by the National Institute for Agricultural Botany (NIAB).  As with many of the Oxford sessions, a variety of speakers, both from inside and without the hosting organisation, addressed a central theme – in this case “Regenerative agriculture – hype or hope?”.  NIAB’s own experience was presented by its head of Farming Systems, Dr Elizabeth Stockdale, who emphasised the broad church approach to regenerative agriculture.

But most of the session involved a presentation from Antony Yousefian of The First Thirty Ventures, an investor focused on early stage agri-tech companies with a regenerative focus.  He spoke of various projects that his organisation was involved in and shared slides showing research around regenerative agriculture.  This is the sort of material that can be expected to be put to venture capitalists and other investors, all of whom are circling this area, seeing the potential for systematic change.   

In front of our eyes was apparent evidence of the health benefits of regenerative agriculture, in that case a comparison between omega 3 and omega 6 levels in conventional and regeneratively produced grain.  Regeneratively produced food is better for you. 

But the moment that is said, you need to be able to say what is regenerative agriculture and what is not.  You cannot have a range of potential practices, some of which may be easy to integrate and some of which may involve wholesale re-engineering of a farm, and say that the claimed benefits apply to them equally?  There has to be more rigour around what regenerative agriculture actually means if the benefits of its output are to be established and promoted.

It seems instinctively likely that such benefits would be promoted to potential investors from outside the sector – if there are thought to be such benefits, why would they not be? 

This cannot be a one-off, and the assumption is that regenerative agriculture will grow in recognition. The Agricultural & Horticultural Development Board (AHDB)’s report of 13 July 2021 of Consumer awareness of regenerative agriculture evidenced a low level of current awareness of regenerative agriculture, and an expectation that this would swell:  “A questionnaire conducted by AHDB and YouGov in May 2021, found that only 14% of British consumers have heard of regenerative agriculture. Although awareness is currently low, we predict it will grow as consumer concern for the environment increases, and brands and retailers begin to use the term more frequently.”  Anecdotally, that is happening.  

If regenerative agriculture is to have credibility as a concept a collective decision will need to be made as to whether regenerative agriculture stays as it is, a producer-focused issue, or starts to become something which purports to offer qualitative benefits in its product.  If the latter option is the destination, then surely some form of verification or certification is bound to be required?

Compare this with the present position on the ground, evidenced by two regenerative family farms, whose family members were speaking at the Oxford Real Farming Conference, in a session hosted by the Royal Agricultural Society of England (RASE).  Both farms have adopted significant regenerative agriculture practices, with one going the full way with a mob grazing system, which is thought to offer very significant benefits to the soil, but requires specialist management and infrastructure.  As both farms produce commodity products they receive no premium for this, despite both being a long way up the regenerative agriculture scale.   Instead, the benefit appears to be in a lower cost of production, enhancing their profitability. 

For those farms capturing the value of a regenerative agriculture system in the price of their produce seems likely to need some form of direct selling, and diversification activity to enable that, based around the story that they can tell of their interaction with land. 

Would certification help those growers, or would it simply be another administrative burden that they might would prefer not carry?  Much might depend upon the premium on offer, but all of this seems to bring regenerative agriculture much closer to the classic view of organic farming. 

Things have gone far enough that clarity seems to be needed now.  This makes 2024 the crunch year for regenerative agriculture.