Jeremy Clarkson is an unlikely eco-warrior. But waxing lyrical about regenerative agriculture at the Harvest Festival he hosted last month, the petrolhead struck an evangelical tone about the vulnerability of soil.
“We’ve got to look after the soil,” he lamented to Andy Cato, the Wildfarmed CEO (and ex-Groove Armada frontman) with whom he’s collaborated on a new Hawkstone Lager. “I don’t know what percentage of the Earth’s surface has any soil worth mentioning. Perhaps 10%. Probably less. But that one foot of soil needs to feed seven billion people.”
Clarkson is right to be concerned. It is estimated that half the topsoil on the planet has been lost to erosion over the past 150 years. And intensive agriculture has also caused soil degradation and compaction. Arable soils in particular have lost up to 60% of their organic carbon, according to Defra.
Yet until recently ‘regenerative agriculture’ was seen as a niche pursuit. An offshoot of the – already small – organic movement.
No more. In the UK alone, Heineken, Nestlé, McDonald’s, McCain, Yeo Valley/First Milk, KP Snacks, M&S and Waitrose are among those investing heavily. And while Nestlé’s trial of using regeneratively farmed wheat in its Kit Kats has been written off as greenwashing, the fact is it plans to source 50% of its key ingredients from regenerative agriculture by 2030.
In the US, the amount of land being farmed regeneratively is even greater: at five million acres Walmart tops the list, followed by McDonald’s (four million), General Mills (one million) and PepsiCo (>240,000). In the case of Danone, 90% of its direct dairy farm network uses regenerative agriculture.
But the movement is being driven as much by farmers as it is corporations: 87% of farmers are more open to adapting farming practices to improve soil health than five years ago, new research from Purina has found. A recent Barclays survey revealed 56% of UK farmers had already moved to regenerative practices in one way or another, while a further 24% plan to do so.
And the reasons are now as much economic as environmental.
The economic case for regen ag
Of course it’s important, with net zero targets in mind, that regenerative agriculture has been shown to lower Scope 3 emissions by up to 30%. And it’s estimated that in the future it could offset up to 20% of all human-caused emissions.
But after the worst harvest on record, farmers are much more mindful about water retention. So the fact that regenerative agriculture holds up to 60% more water (an additional 20,000 gallons of water for every 1% more organic matter in the soil) will be hugely appealing. (That it also reduces the likelihood of flooding is of further public good.)
Add to this the soaring cost of inputs, particularly nitrogen-based fertilisers and red diesel, and it’s no wonder regenerative agriculture is being looked at with renewed attention.
The assumption has always been that regen ag, like organic, isn’t sufficiently productive to be economically viable at scale. And it’s true that certain crops like root veg, corn, soy, palm oil and winter wheat don’t do well, either because they need substantial tilling, or the fuel injection that nitrogen provides, or are almost impossible to grow without pesticides.
But other crops like legumes, rye, barley, oats, spring wheat, oilseed rape, mustard, flax and linseed have all performed well in regen ag systems. At the very least, regen ag has the opportunity to be a much more important part of the mix in the future.
Is it the silver bullet some have suggested, however? Probably not. There are some big obstacles still in its way.
The first is time. There’s a lag a lag of up to five years, which requires deep pockets or subsidy. And as we know, government support for farming is patchy at best, which makes the support of corporations particularly valuable. More need to step up.
The second is, ironically, quality. With more organic matter in the soil, crops are naturally more nutritious. But that doesn’t mean they will always taste better and, in any case, a separate crop pool is always difficult to manage at scale, whether it’s ethical, environmental or quality-based, which makes securing a premium tricky.
The third issue is the lack of rules and standards. But that might also be a strength. Mass adoption needs trial and error, and further research, centred around a broad set of regenerative principles, to make the economics work.
Adam Leyland is editor-at-large at The Grocer
No comments yet