Source
https://landworkersalliance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/matterofscale.pdf — original source (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Laughton (2017) — A Matter of Scale
The primary kg/m² veg-yield table behind CR_021 — firms veg_yield, and lands MODESTLY BELOW the 25 t/ha synthesis figure
Rebecca Laughton’s “A Matter of Scale” (Landworkers’ Alliance + Centre for Agroecology, Water & Resilience, Coventry University, 2017) — a UK survey of small farms ≤20 ha. Its Table 5.1 is the only direct per-crop kg/m² dataset behind the regenerative
veg_yieldfigure (CR_021). The path-adjusted median crop yields average ≈ 2.08 kg/m² (21 t/ha) — below CR_021’s judgment-weighted 2.5 (25). Held alongside CR_021 as the conservative-vs-synthesis pair. Non-peer-reviewed, self-reported, UK → data_quality: medium.
Summary
The “A Matter of Scale” (AMOS) study (Laughton 2017) surveyed the productivity, financial viability and multifunctional benefits of UK small farms (≤20 ha) for the Landworkers’ Alliance and CAWR. For Neobiome its load-bearing content is Table 5.1, the only direct per-crop marketable-yield dataset (kg/m²) underpinning the regenerative veg_yield figure synthesised in CR_021. It provides path-adjusted median yields for 17 indicator vegetables and a crop-by-crop comparison against standard organic and non-organic data. This source firms veg_yield from the primary and supplies the directly-computed conservative figure (median basis ≈ 21 t/ha).
Key claims
- claim: "Study basis: AMOS surveyed UK small farms ≤20 ha (Landworkers' Alliance / CAWR, Coventry University, 2017); vegetables were grown by 59 respondents producing 11–40 crop types (most ~30). Because the yield distribution was right-skewed (a few high-yielding holdings), the MEDIAN was used rather than the mean. A path adjustment of ×0.85 was applied (fixed/raised-bed paths take ~15–25% of growing area), flagged by the author as a questionnaire-design limitation."
source_location: "§5.1 (n, crop diversity, median rationale, ×0.85 path adjustment)"
- claim: "Table 5.1 — path-adjusted (×0.85) MEDIAN yields (kg/m²) for 17 indicator crops: Potato 1.8, Tomato 3.4 (heated), Carrots 1.9, Leeks 2.8, Broad beans 1.3, Squash 1.8, French beans 1.5, Chard 1.5, Kale 2.3, Salad 2.6, Parsnip 2.2, Beetroot 2.4, Onions 2.6, Calabrese 0.9, Cabbage 2.4, Courgette 3.4, Sweetcorn 0.6. Unweighted mean across the 17 crops ≈ 2.08 kg/m² (≈ 21 t/ha) on the median basis (≈ 2.44 kg/m² / 24 t/ha if the mean column is used instead, which the report does not recommend)."
source_location: "§5.1 Table 5.1"
- claim: "Crop-specific comparison vs non-organic standard data: AMOS small-farm yields are HIGHER than non-organic for crops that benefit from intricate husbandry / hand-picking — salad 2.6 vs 0.6, kale 2.3 vs 0.9, chard 1.5 vs 0.8, leeks 2.8 vs 2.1, French beans 1.5 vs 0.9, broad beans 1.3 vs 0.4, courgette 3.4 vs 2.5 — but LOWER for crops that benefit from mechanisation / economies of scale — potato 1.8 vs 4.5, carrots 1.9 vs 6.1, squash 1.8 vs 4.0, onions 2.6 vs 4.2. Against standard ORGANIC data, AMOS yields are higher for all crops except sweetcorn."
source_location: "§5.1 + Figure 5.1 (comparison with British Growers' Association data)"
- claim: "Framing: traditional organic yields are typically 75–80% of conventional agriculture; small diversified farms gain a 'total output' / poly-cropping advantage (multiple crops per area) not captured by single-crop yield. The study documents the multifunctional benefits and financial viability of small farms beyond yield. Self-reported survey data; UK context."
source_location: "Executive summary; §intro (Rosset total-output critique); §5"Neobiome Intelligence relevance
Resolves RT_241 and firms the regenerative veg_yield from the actual primary (Table 5.1), rather than the CR_021 synthesis alone. Two figures are held, deliberately, as a conservative-vs-synthesis pair (consistent with the both-sides approach of decision D_001):
- Conservative (adopted for the model): ≈ 2.08 kg/m² = 21 t/ha — the unweighted mean of the path-adjusted median crop yields, the basis the report itself recommends (robust to the right-skew).
- Synthesis upper estimate: 2.5 kg/m² = 25 t/ha (CR_021) — a judgment-weighted central leaning toward higher-value greens; plausible but unsubstantiated by area weights.
Both rest on the same single UK survey, so the choice is one of aggregation method, not source authority; the median basis is the more defensible, so the model uses ~21 t/ha with 25 retained as the upper bound. The crop-by-crop reversal (regenerative wins on hand-picked greens, loses on mechanisation-favoured staples) firms the central D_001 evidence. ⚠ UK data, not NZ — the transfer caveat stands; NZ localisation remains RT_242. The whole-diet “staples haircut” still applies on top (a self-sufficient community must grow the bulk staples where regenerative yields are lowest).
Research targets
Research gaps
- RT_241 (RESOLVED → this page): the AMOS Table 5.1 primary is held; path-adjusted median crop-mean ≈ 2.08 kg/m² (21 t/ha) computed directly.
- RT_242 (still open): NZ regenerative trial data would localise this UK figure (the transfer caveat is the binding uncertainty).
Connections
Links to
Decisions (1): D_001: Neobiome food production — regenerative…
Sources (1): CR_021
Referenced by
Sources (6): CR_021 · CR_023 · CR_051 · OT_096 · OT_108 · OT_193
Decisions (1): D_001: Neobiome food production — regenerative…
SSI indicators (1): I02: Food Security & Sustainable Agriculture
EDT domains (1): D02: Smart Food Systems & Agriculture