While the authors acknowledge there are other environmental benefits from reduced tillage systems and intercropping practices, they say greenhouse gas sequestration figures are not clear-cut.
As a non-profit and politically independent organisation, agri benchmark provides comprehensive information and advice on crop production systems worldwide.
Dr Yelto Zimmer, Dr Joachim Lammel, Professor Ludwig Theuvsen and Barry Ward recently published their study titled “Regenerative agriculture and climate change mitigation – high expectations, low success” in the peer-reviewed academic journal EuroChoices. The study can be downloaded at: https://tinyurl.com/yz3dpfn2 .
According to the findings, practices such as intercropping and reduced tillage are feasible only to a “limited extent” and may even reduce yields under certain climatic conditions. “The expected economic benefits are often based on unrealistic assumptions, and the lower yields can even lead to indirect land-use changes that can negate carbon sequestration,” the authors say.
Further, they fear that the focus on regenerative methods might distract from the real issues: “Whether intentional or not, we see a risk that policy-makers, industry and farmers will be fascinated by the fancy term, while not addressing the really important strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, such as the efficiency of nitrogen use in agricultural production systems. Our impression is that the concept of regenerative agriculture is so attractive to agricultural actors because it focuses on the sequestration of greenhouse gases and therefore can, at least in theory, become a source of income for farmers through the sale of certifications.”
While regenerative agriculture methods may have other benefits such as soil health and improved water retention, researchers say the system’s potential for carbon sequestration through is over-stated.
Improving nitrogen efficiency as a guiding principle
Rather than focusing on regenerative agriculture as a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the academics say improving nitrogen use efficiency is a more effective approach to cut back on the carbon footprint of agricultural products. The use of mineral nitrogen fertilisers is responsible for around 80% of the greenhouse gas emissions linked to crop production and it goes without saying that effective fertiliser applications reduce input costs and improve productivity.
Further, unlike regenerative methods, improving nitrogen efficiency provides stable and measurable results without the need for farmers to accept yield losses or to remain dependent on permanent financial compensation from governments.
The researchers believe this model is a much more sustainable long-term strategy that makes economic sense while simultaneously making a reliable contribution to climate change mitigation.
They also call for “critical dialogue” on the issue. “We hope that in the end, agricultural stakeholders will be aware of the limitations and shortcomings of the key elements of regenerative agriculture in terms of reducing and sequestering greenhouse gases. On this basis, they will be in a better position to contribute to the much-needed improvement of the greenhouse gas balance of global crop production,” they say.
