While the term ‘regenerative agriculture’ seems to crop up everywhere these days, there is no real consensus on what the term means or looks like in practice.
It’s a term often more associated with grazing than broadacre farming, yet there are implications around what is termed ‘regenerative agriculture’ for the Australian cotton industry.
University of Sydney researcher Dr Tom O’Donoghue reviewed the exploding number of regenerative agriculture programs and whether they actually can improve how farms function almost a decade ago. He clearly showed these programs are based on a 300-year-old premise put forward by the ‘father of modern agriculture’, Jethro Tull. Born in 1674, Jethro was known as a thought leader of his time – inventing the seed drill, and writing the classic Horse-Hoeing Husbandry in 1731.
“It turns out Jethro Tull isn’t just a rock band known only by people of a certain age,” sustainability advisor Chris Cosgrove says.
“In Horse-Hoeing Husbandry, Tull encourages people to consider the expense, goodness and certainty of a crop, and the condition in which land is left after a crop and I believe that Tull’s thinking is still on the money today.
“With the benefit of 300 years of hindsight, if we add in the importance of how we leave ‘society’ then you have regenerative agriculture in a nutshell.”
Chris says not only is there no agreement of what it is or how it is measured, there’s also no agreement as to whether it can be measured at all.
“In light of all this, the Australian cotton industry is exploring a definition of regenerative agriculture which is applicable for all Australian agriculture sectors.
“It’s important to the cotton industry as the vagueness of ‘regenerative agriculture’ is creating a proliferation of marketing programs that are confusing both farmers and consumers.
“In addition, farmers are increasingly being asked to provide evidence of different regenerative practices to different companies in their value chain – normally for no financial reward.
“We are advocating for a common definition to be used across agriculture industries to avoid confusion and to retain as much value as possible for farmers in demonstrating ‘regenerative’ practices, instead of having third parties capture premiums or certification fees for themselves to demonstrate this good work.”
Working with Tom and across the industry, Chris says we’ve arrived at a draft definition: ‘Regenerative agriculture is any farming system that increases product quality and yield reliability, and the natural and human resources agriculture depends on, relevant to the natural complexity and variability of each farm’.
“Regenerative agriculture is often thought of as improving soil health. In reality, it is much more than that,” he said.
“Our definition or description is broader than, but consistent with, most of the multiple regenerative agriculture definitions in existence, but by having a direct link to the 1731 thinking of Jethro Tull, it reinforces regenerative agriculture is not new.
“It is also directly aligned to the cotton industry’s work to revamp its sustainability data framework to measure, value and track stocks of natural and human capital, impacts and dependencies.
“The indicators we have for each of these – which are sustainability indicators customers of food and fibre are increasingly seeking – lets us measure the expense, goodness and certainty of a crop, and the condition in which land and society is left after a crop.”
The definition has not yet been adopted by the industry and discussions are ongoing with multiple stakeholders in other industries and along the cotton value chain.
“We’re very happy for others to disagree with us and provide an alternative definition we can support,” Chris said.
“In our view, effort shouldn’t be spent arguing about definitions or philosophies or reinventing 300-year old wheels.
“We think there are only two things that matter.
“First, we need a single definition agreed by all agriculture to maximise value for farmers and reduce confusion and inconsistency along the value chain.
“And second, the definition needs to allow farmers to choose practices that measurably impact product quality and yield reliability, and natural and human resources, relevant to the natural complexity and variability of each farm.”
For more
Chris Cosgrove
chris@sustenanceasia.com
This article appears courtesy of the Cotton Research and Development Corporation (CRDC). It was published in the (Spring2024) edition of CRDC’s Spotlight magazine: www.crdc.com.au/spotlight
