Trying to understand regenerative agriculture
If you’re on a quest to learn about where your food comes from, you’ll likely see the term regenerative agriculture pop up.
In some circles, regenerative agriculture has become part of the vernacular, a term used in ordinary conversation, familiar to everyone.
But in reality, it’s not well understood by many consumers. And by ignoring that fact, the agri-food sector is creating confusion.
Regenerative agriculture is the concerted, methodic attempt to naturally rehabilitate and replenish tired ecosystems, with a particular focus on soil.
It has five key principles, according to the Canadian Standards Association: minimize soil disturbance, keep soil covered year-round, keep live plants and living roots in the soil, enhance biodiversity above and below the ground, and incorporate farm animals for manure and nutrients.
But there’s more – regenerative agriculture includes social principles such as community revitalization, health and empowerment, and advancing equality, safe work and fair business practices.
I came across regenerative agriculture about a dozen years ago, interviewing former students who were taking over their family meat business. To them, regenerative agriculture was the future. The grass on which their herds feed would be grown using regenerative methods, they said, and that would be a key factor to make their beef taste better and appeal to community-minded consumers.
I liked their sincerity. I watched to see if the term, and the discipline, would take off. And it has.
Research reported in March by an organization called Kiss the Ground said nearly seven per cent of U.S. adults are aware regenerative agriculture is “a solution for the water, wellness and climate crisis.” That doesn’t sound like many, but 18 months earlier, their research showed that figure was at four per cent.
Likewise, in the past winter, the American Farm Bureau Federation engaged a digital media and survey research company to ask more than 2,000 people about issues related to farming, including regenerative agriculture.
The federation discovered that one in three respondents had never heard of it. But those familiar with it had a positive view of it.
Of further interest was respondents’ opinion of pesticides. About half of them thought pesticides are an important tool for protecting crops and are safe when used carefully. And nearly 60 per cent of respondents warmed up to pesticide use when told that heavily restricting or banning pesticides would hugely increase weeds and inhibit some regenerative practices such as no-till.
As well, more than 80 per cent of adults surveyed said they trusted farmers to make their own decisions about regenerative agriculture.
Farmers like to hear that. No matter where they farm, most think there are already too many rules in place that govern how they farm, made by bureaucrats who don’t understand agricultural practices. They don’t need someone telling them how to farm regeneratively.
But society needs some standards. It’s like the early days of organic farming, when the term was used loosely and consumers were confused.
Let’s not make that mistake again. Let’s get a definition everyone agrees with, can live with and can rally around.
Owen Roberts is an agricultural journalist from Guelph.
