Defining and validating regenerative farm systems using a composite of ranked agricultural practices.

Background: Ongoing efforts attempt to define farms as regenerative to aid marketers, policymakers, farmers, etc. The approach needs to balance precision with function, and must be transparent, simple, scalable, transferable, incorruptible, and replicable. Methods: We developed practice-based scoring systems to distinguish regenerative cropland and rangeland, and validate them based on whether these scores scaled with regenerative goals on actual farm operations. Study systems included cornfields of the Upper Midwest, almond orchards of California, and rangeland systems of the Northern Plains. Response variables included soil carbon and organic matter, soil micronutrients, water infiltration rates, soil microbial communities, plant community structure, invertebrate community structure, pest populations, yields, and profit. Results: Regenerative outcomes were strongly correlated with our approach to farm scoring. Soil organic matter, fine particulate organic matter, total soil carbon, total soil nitrogen, phosphorous, calcium and sulfur all increased alongside regenerative matrix scores in one or both of the cropping systems. Water infiltration rates were significantly faster in more regenerative almond orchards. Soil bacterial biomass and Haney soil health test scores were higher as cropland incorporated more regenerative practices. Plant species diversity and biomass increased significantly with the number of regenerative practices employed on almonds and rangelands. Invertebrate species diversity and richness were positively associated with regenerative practices in corn, almonds, and rangelands, whereas pest populations and almond yields were unaffected by the number of regenerative practices. Corn yields were negatively associated with more regenerative practices, while almond yields were unaffected by the number of regenerative practices. Profit was significantly higher on more regenerative corn and almond operations. Conclusions: Our scoring system scaled positively with desired regenerative outcomes, and provides the basis for predicting ecosystem responses with minimal information about the farming operation. Natural clusters in the number of regenerative practices used can be used to distinguish regenerative and conventional operations.

Regenerative agriculture: merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably.

Most cropland in the United States is characterized by large monocultures, whose productivity is maintained through a strong reliance on costly tillage, external fertilizers, and pesticides (Schipanski et al., 2016). Despite this, farmers have developed a regenerative model of farm production that promotes soil health and biodiversity, while producing nutrient-dense farm products profitably. Little work has focused on the relative costs and benefits of novel regenerative farming operations, which necessitates studying in situ, farmer-defined best management practices. Here, we evaluate the relative effects of regenerative and conventional corn production systems on pest management services, soil conservation, and farmer profitability and productivity throughout the Northern Plains of the United States. Regenerative farming systems provided greater ecosystem services and profitability for farmers than an input-intensive model of corn production. Pests were 10-fold more abundant in insecticide-treated corn fields than on insecticide-free regenerative farms, indicating that farmers who proactively design pest-resilient food systems outperform farmers that react to pests chemically. Regenerative fields had 29% lower grain production but 78% higher profits over traditional corn production systems. Profit was positively correlated with the particulate organic matter of the soil, not yield. These results provide the basis for dialogue on ecologically based farming systems that could be used to simultaneously produce food while conserving our natural resource base: two factors that are pitted against one another in simplified food production systems. To attain this requires a systems-level shift on the farm; simply applying individual regenerative practices within the current production model will not likely produce the documented results.