In recent years, regenerative agriculture has become an increasingly popular concept, promoted as a solution for climate change and sustainable food production. Global corporations like Nestlé have already introduced guidelines based on this practice, while the World Economic Forum sees regenerative agriculture as key to agricultural resilience against climate change and the decarbonization of the food system.
However, the latest report from Agri Benchmark researchers in Germany shows that the benefits of this practice are often overestimated, and both economic and environmental effects fall short of expectations.
Carbon Sequestration – Myth or Reality?
One of the main arguments in favor of regenerative agriculture is the claim that using cover crops and reducing soil tillage significantly contributes to carbon sequestration in the soil and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
However, meta-analyses of scientific research, including a study by EASAC, show that reduced or conservation tillage does not increase overall soil carbon reserves. Instead, carbon accumulates in the upper soil layers while its levels in deeper layers decrease. If the soil were to be plowed again, all that carbon would be released into the atmosphere, calling into question the long-term benefit of this method.
Although cover crops may have certain benefits for soil quality, their contribution to carbon sequestration is limited and depends on the type of crops used. Legumes have a higher potential, but even then, the effects are short-term – once cover crops are no longer used, the stored carbon gradually returns to the atmosphere.
Economic Reality – Is It Profitable?
Regenerative agriculture is often presented as a financially viable option, but recent studies suggest otherwise. A study by the Boston Consulting Group in Germany suggests that farmers could increase their profit by €52 per hectare by adopting regenerative methods. However, the authors of the Agri Benchmark report state that these calculations are based on unrealistic assumptions:
Revenue from carbon credits – The German model accounts for an additional €38/ha from selling carbon credits for growing cover crops. However, in reality, many farmers already receive subsidies for this practice, meaning there is no additional profit.
Savings on fertilizers – The estimated reduction in fertilization costs by €89/ha is unrealistic, as no research supports such savings in practice.
Hidden costs – Reduced soil tillage often requires increased herbicide use, and in dry years, yields do not increase and may even decline.
In other words, if regenerative agriculture were truly profitable, its adoption would happen organically, without the need for subsidies. However, data shows that cover crops and reduced tillage methods are mainly implemented in regions where government subsidies exist – raising questions about their long-term sustainability.
What Are Carbon Credits?
Carbon credits are a mechanism that allows companies and individuals to reduce their carbon footprint by purchasing “permits” to emit carbon dioxide (CO₂). One carbon credit represents the reduction or removal of one ton of CO₂ from the atmosphere.
Farmers who use methods for storing carbon in the soil (such as cover crops or reduced tillage) can earn carbon credits and sell them to companies that want to “neutralize” their emissions. However, as this analysis shows, the actual ability of regenerative agriculture to permanently store carbon is questionable, which raises concerns about the long-term value of these credits.
Yield Loss and the “Emission Leakage” Problem
One of the key problems with regenerative agriculture is yield reduction. If the use of mineral fertilizers is reduced or if no-till methods are adopted, yields often decline.
This means that the lost production must be compensated elsewhere – usually by increasing agricultural production in other areas. This phenomenon, known as “emission leakage,” can result in lost yields being offset by deforestation or increased fertilizer use elsewhere, potentially causing higher emissions than those saved.
What Is a Better Solution?
The authors of the report emphasize that instead of focusing on regenerative agriculture, efforts should be directed toward improving the efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer use. About 80% of CO₂ emissions from crop production come from the use of mineral fertilizers, but research shows that there are methods to reduce these emissions without significant yield losses.
Potential solutions include:
Precision agriculture and more targeted use of nitrogen fertilizers,
The use of drones and sensors to optimize plant nutrition,
Subsurface nitrogen application to reduce volatilization losses.
Regenerative agriculture may sound appealing, but its effects on climate change and economic sustainability fall far short of the claims often made. The real path to sustainable agriculture does not lie in popular slogans but in proven methods that simultaneously increase productivity and reduce environmental impact.
