Source
doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.577723 — original publication (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Summary
Newton et al. (2020), in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, is the most-cited attempt to pin down what “regenerative agriculture” actually means. Reviewing 229 journal articles and 25 practitioner websites, the authors find no legal, regulatory or widely-accepted common definition — instead, the term is defined variously by processes (cover crops, integrating livestock, reducing/eliminating tillage), by outcomes (improving soil health, sequestering carbon, increasing biodiversity), or by combinations of the two. For Neobiome Intelligence it is the conceptual anchor for the food domain: it gives the processes-and-outcomes framework, and its central implication — that, absent an agreed definition, any user should define regenerative agriculture explicitly for their own purpose and context.
Key claims
- claim: "There is no legal or regulatory definition of 'regenerative agriculture', nor a widely accepted definition in common usage; reviewing 229 journal articles and 25 practitioner websites revealed many different definitions and descriptions in use."
source_location: "Abstract; §Results"
- claim: "Definitions of regenerative agriculture are variously based on processes (e.g., use of cover crops, integration of livestock, reducing or eliminating tillage), on outcomes (e.g., improving soil health, sequestering carbon, increasing biodiversity), or on combinations of the two."
source_location: "Abstract; §Results"
- claim: "Process-based and outcome-based definitions carry different implications (open-mindedness about outcomes vs about processes); wide variance in usage creates uncertainty for policy, including certification programs and payments for carbon sequestration. The authors suggest each user define the term comprehensively for their own purpose and context."
source_location: "Abstract; §Discussion"
- claim: "Most uses of the term are undefined: of the 229 journal articles, only 22 gave an approximate definition, 99 gave a looser description (some aims/processes/outcomes), and 108 used the term with no definition or description at all; 22 of the 25 practitioner organisations provided a definition. Only 51 articles derived their definition from prior sources (most commonly Pretty 1995, Rodale Institute 2014, LaCanne & Lundgren 2018). Use of the term surged 2015–2019."
source_location: "§Results 'Definitions and descriptions of regenerative agriculture' (p.4); Figure 1; Tables S1–S2"
- claim: "Most commonly named PROCESSES — in research articles: reducing external/synthetic inputs 26%, integrating livestock 19%, not using synthetic fertilisers 12%, not using pesticides 12%, reducing/eliminating tillage 12%. On practitioner websites: reducing/eliminating tillage 41%, integrating livestock 41%, cover crops 31%."
source_location: "§Results — Processes; Table 1"
- claim: "Most commonly named OUTCOMES — in research articles: improve soil health 41%, sequester carbon 17%, increase biodiversity 17%. On practitioner websites: improve soil health 86%, sequester carbon 64%, increase biodiversity 46%, improve water resources 46%, improve community social/economic wellbeing 41%. By definition type: outcome-only (44 scholarly + 5 practitioner sources), combination of processes and outcomes (51 scholarly + 15 practitioner)."
source_location: "§Results — Outcomes; Table 1"
- claim: "Conceptual implication: an outcome-based definition implies process-agnosticism — any practice that delivers the stated outcome qualifies, potentially even intensive 'land-sparing' farming that most RA advocates would reject; a process-based definition implies outcome-agnosticism — the burden of proof rests on the producer to test that the prescribed practices actually deliver the claimed outcomes, rather than assume it."
source_location: "§Discussion (process-based vs outcome-based implications)"
- claim: "Context: agriculture is associated with approximately one-third of global land use and around 15% of global greenhouse-gas emissions, while global food demand is anticipated to grow with population and per-capita demand."
source_location: "§Introduction"Review findings in detail
Of the 229 journal articles, only 22 gave a definition, 99 a looser description, and 108 no definition at all; 22 of 25 practitioner organisations defined the term, and use of it surged 2015–2019 LIT_046. The named processes, with prevalence, were LIT_046:
| Process | Research articles | Practitioner sites |
|---|---|---|
| Reduce / eliminate tillage | 12% | 41% |
| Integrate livestock | 19% | 41% |
| Cover crops | — | 31% |
| Reduce external / synthetic inputs | 26% | — |
| No synthetic fertilisers | 12% | — |
| No pesticides | 12% | — |
The named outcomes, with prevalence, were LIT_046:
| Outcome | Research articles | Practitioner sites |
|---|---|---|
| Improve soil health | 41% | 86% |
| Sequester carbon | 17% | 64% |
| Increase biodiversity | 17% | 46% |
| Improve water resources | — | 46% |
| Community social / economic wellbeing | — | 41% |
Two patterns stand out: practitioners lean on outcomes (soil health 86%, carbon 64%) while academics emphasise reducing inputs; and the outcome- vs process-based split is consequential (see key claims) — a strict outcome definition could even admit intensive “land-sparing” farming, while a process definition shifts the burden onto proving the practices work LIT_046. The paper notes — without endorsing — contested advocacy claims (e.g. that regenerative agriculture could sequester more than 100% of current annual CO₂ emissions) LIT_046.
Neobiome Intelligence relevance
- D02 — the conceptual anchor for regenerative agriculture. LIT_046 supplies the processes-and-outcomes framework the food domain previously referenced only obliquely (e.g. “soil regeneration” in LIT_020; the slow-water/compost-heat practices in Interview VII [INT_007]). Its operative lesson for a Neobiome food spec: because there is no agreed definition, the project should define regenerative agriculture explicitly — a chosen process suite (e.g. cover crops, livestock integration, minimal tillage) targeting stated outcomes (soil health, carbon, biodiversity) — and measure the outcomes rather than assume the practices deliver them (the paper’s process-vs-outcome caution: a process definition puts the burden of proof on demonstrating the practices actually work) LIT_046.
- I09 — environmental outcomes. The outcome side (soil carbon sequestration, biodiversity) is the environmental-sustainability rationale for a regenerative food system LIT_046.
- ⚠ Scope: a definitional review — no yields or quantitative outcome data, and US/global framing; NZ regenerative-agriculture yield and soil-carbon outcomes remain a gap (new RT).
Research targets
Research gaps
- NZ-specific regenerative-agriculture yield and soil-carbon/biodiversity outcome data (kg/ha vs conventional, soil-carbon accrual rates) — needed before the model can quantify a regenerative food system’s productivity and environmental return; LIT_046 frames the definition but provides no numbers.
Connections
Links to
Sources (1): LIT_020
Referenced by
SSI indicators (1): I09: Environmental Sustainability
EDT domains (1): D02: Smart Food Systems & Agriculture