Regenerative farming is the future direction

My great grandfather was the blacksmith at Falkland in Fife.

He made the wrought iron gates of Falkland Palace which still stand today and managed to persuade the local farmer’s daughter to marry him. He was so successful that he managed to acquire the smithy at the other end of the village.

Unfortunately, his success was to lead to his downfall, for between the two smithys was a pub, and the drinking establishment gradually came to see more of my great grandfather than either of his two smithys.

It felt like something of a homecoming therefore, driving through Falkland on the way to the recent Go Falkland event on regenerative farming hosted by Ninian Stuart. He and his neighbour Johnnie Balfour were keen to start a Groundswell of the North following his visit to the one in the South a couple of years ago.

Groundswell has ballooned into a big event down south from humble beginnings, and I believe Ninian’s northern version will grow arms and legs too in time. However, the narrow winding lanes of the Fife village of my ancestor could serve as a metaphor for regenerative agriculture – very attractive, but easy to lose your way, and one wrong move in a modern vehicle could lead to a prang. It is not an easy route to take.

It is becoming very clear however that regenerative farming is the future direction of travel. I have not perhaps paid as much attention to soil health as I should, so I decided to go and have a listen to some people who have taken the load less travelled, and here follow some of the lessons I learnt.

Firstly, the tribe of regenerative enthusiasts have their own culture which is not immediately comprehensible to a conventional farmer like your correspondent. Profit is not exactly a dirty word, but it plays second fiddle to improving soil health. Secondly there is an emphasis on fairness and health, not just of the soil but also people. The starting mindset is slightly different, which takes a minute to get used to, and while I think the goal of a fairer, healthier society is an admirable one, I think there is a danger that it could put too much on the shoulders of regenerative farming and hold back wider uptake of a focus on soil health.

Two things stood out for me regarding this. Firstly, in a panel discussion with leaders of Fife Council, cabinet secretary Mairi Gougeon and Johnnie Balfour, public procurement and health rightly featured heavily, but there was almost no mention of supermarkets, who supply 95% of the nation’s food. If we are serious about wanting a fairer and healthier supply chain, the retailers need to be in the room. Not everyone can sell locally, and most farmers supply supermarkets indirectly or directly.

Secondly, there was a question about food poverty, and whether farming regeneratively would lead to more expensive food. The feeling was that it needn’t cost more if done well, but while that might be the case for beef, it certainly isn’t for fruit and veg, which is still underpriced, mainly because of rapidly increasing labour costs. Growing stuff is challenging enough - I don’t think farmers should be held responsible for alleviating food poverty as well. That burden should be borne by retailers and government.

We are stewards of our soil however and should want to leave our land in a better state than we found it. One of the most refreshing discussions involved two regenerative farmers who are going about things slightly differently from each other. David Aglen is farm manager at Balibirnie, and Doug Christie farms at Durie, both in Fife. They have been trailblazers and advocates for regenerative farming for some time now, and unlike almost all farmers I know, freely and openly admit to making many mistakes along the way.

It is remarkably refreshing, and the success they have had is more convincing because of it. The key tenets of regen farming for both are minimal soil disturbance, cover crops, livestock where possible, living roots, plant diversity, and finally, context. (In other words, different farms have different requirements).

There are conflicting views about the use of glyphosate, with some viewing it as a necessary evil to avoid ploughing, which causes more damage to the soil structure and flora and fauna, while others prefer the organic route with no pesticides or inorganic fertilisers whatsoever. All seem to agree that regen farming should at the least ultimately lead to a reduction in fertiliser, as a healthier soil will make more nutrients accessible to the growing crop.

I had an interesting conversation with Dave Cunningham of Dods of Haddington, who maintains that the rate of glyphosate can be reduced to as little as 800ml/ha by adding citric and fulvic acid into the tank to drop the pH to 3.5, so we will definitely trial that at home.

I think the argument for a regenerative approach to farming is compelling in many ways, so why has it not been taken up more widely? A comprehensive 2023 study by Demos, sponsored by McCain foods, found three main barriers to wider uptake.

Firstly, in the short term at least, financial incentives are poor. Current regen farmers have changed because they believe it is the right thing to do, and hats off to them, but most farmers are unwilling or unable to switch to a system that will likely lead to reduced margins for a time. Regenerative farming takes more time and managerial input, a very scarce resource on most farms.

There is also a lack of clarity about what regenerative farming means and what benefits it will bring amongst conventional farmers. Finally, there is not a clear road map for farmers to follow. What works on one farm might not be suitable for another because of soil type, climate, or even variation in weather from year to year.

Evangelical regenerative farmers will not agree, but I’m afraid part of the solution to a lack of scaling up is as it always is, money, either in the form of a carrot or a stick, and the source will probably be a combination of retailer and government.