Regenerative agriculture is shifting beneath our feet. A new review in CABI Agriculture and Bioscience has reframed it not as a menu of practices, but as an ecological, outcomes-driven movement focused on soil restoration. This shift matters. It sets the stage for measurable progress, rooted in soil, led by farmers, and reinforced by science. In this article, we’ll explore why this redefinition matters, how it links to practical strategies, and what it means for regenerative agriculture’s future.
1. Why Definitions Matter
Regenerative agriculture has been criticized for being too vague or too rigid. Farmers were told to cover crop, reduce tillage, or integrate livestock, but without clarity on why or how to adapt those actions locally.
The new review changes that. It positions regenerative agriculture as soil and system restoration driven by outcomes: soil structure, organic matter, biodiversity, nutrient cycles, and resilience. That allows farming systems to adapt. The focus shifts from adopting a list of practices to improving soil function.
Farmers gain agency. Advisors and supply chains gain clarity. Tools and metrics become meaningful. And regenerative agriculture finally becomes trackable, not just desirable.
2. From Theory to Practice
This outcome-driven approach invites measurement. Soil testing, biodiversity tracking, water infiltration rates, these can be tracked farm by farm. Farmers can see where they stand and how soil improves over seasons.
Planners can design adaptable programs. A wave of agroecological tools, from digital tracing systems to mapping and water sensors, can support soil outcomes knowingly, not by guess.
When soil function becomes the goal, not the backdrop, regenerative agriculture transforms into action, action that communities can own, adapt, and scale.
3. The Role of Science
By grounding its case in peer-reviewed studies, practitioner knowledge, and soil ecology advances, the review builds credibility. It argues that regenerative agriculture is not fringe, but modern farming, rooted in living soil systems.
Biological processes, like microbial-driven organic matter building, can rebuild degraded soils faster than thought. That gives soil health a measurable path forward.
That matters for funders, governments, and farmers. It ensures prospects are backed by science that accepts complexity, variation, and context.
4. Building a Shared Language
An outcomes-based definition offers a common language. Farmers, researchers, buyers, and policymakers can speak in terms of soil as living infrastructure. It can unite dialogues across silos.
This foundation allows for credible policy support, impact funding, integrity in supply chains, and a path for measurement, without stifling adaptation.
Growing regenerative agriculture becomes about nurturing soil vitality, not chasing labels.
5. What Comes Next
To bring soil-centered outcomes into practice, we need:
Metrics, tools, and infrastructure for soil testing and tracking.
Extension networks teaching soil ecology.
Funding linked to outcomes, not practices.
Transparent reporting and farmer-led measurement.
Narratives rooted in soil stories, not slogans.
With the new definition, regenerative agriculture becomes a measurable, credible, scalable force.
Words shape action. By defining regenerative agriculture as a movement grounded in soil outcomes, not merely methods, we finally equip the field with clarity, purpose, and direction. Soil becomes infrastructure. Farmers become innovators. Supply chains become accountable. This framing honors ecology, empowers adaptation, and helps rebuild farming systems one metric, one acre, one harvest at a time. Regenerative agriculture’s future lies in outcomes beneath our feet, real, measurable, and regenerative.
Citations
Critical review defining regenerative agriculture as an ecological, soil-centered, outcome-driven movement.
Michigan’s workshop series on row crop soil-health led by MDARD and Understanding Ag.
UK egg producer Noble Foods implements TerraMap soil mapping technology to support regenerative agriculture.
