A recent survey of regenerative farming systems has raised as many questions as it has provided answers about the farming method’s definition, and its profitability.
This includes whether regenerative farming will result in a lower greenhouse gas footprint compared to conventional farm systems.
AgFirst consultant Steve Howarth revealed the results of a survey funded by Our Land and Water comparing production, profit, and meat quality outcomes from North Island sheep and beef farms.
The study paired 16 properties, eight regenerative and eight conventional, ranging in size from 115 hectares to 800ha for the conventional and 25ha to 380ha for the regenerative.
Howarth pointed to a Beef + Lamb New Zealand report that identified a market of “conscious foodies”, 50% of whom said they were prepared to pay a premium up to 20% for regeneratively sourced food.
This is supported by a high level of global food company interest in regenerative farming methods, including the likes of Mars, Coca-Cola, Kellogg’s and Unilever.
Little discernible difference was found in terms of the meat quality from the two systems.
However, it was in areas of farm profitability and GHG production that distinct differences arose.
Taking four years of farm data and averaging it out revealed an average revenue per hectare for conventional farms of $1470/ha, compared to $1090/ha for regenerative.
This was largely driven by a lower level of feed conversion efficiency on the regenerative farms.
Regen farms averaged a net of 200kg of product (meat and wool) per hectare, compared to 326kg/ha for conventional.
With costs for both systems very similar, conventional farming systems came out significantly on top for profitability, by about $340/ha on average at $613/ha, versus $273/ha for regenerative.
That lower level of feed utilisation on the regenerative farms also impacted GHG emission efficiency.
Outwardly, regenerative farms achieved lower GHG emissions per hectare at about 3.9t/ha per year, compared to 5t/ha per year.
However, the regenerative farms were let down by their lower feed conversion efficiency, which played into higher emissions intensity, being 25% greater than conventional farms’ emissions.
The kilograms of emissions of GHG generated per kg of product produced were 20kg per kg of product for the regen farms, compared to 16.3kg of GHG per kg product for conventional.
Among the surveyed farmers, those classing themselves as “regenerative” ranked “land health and development” significantly higher than their conventional counterparts.
Conventional farmers tended to place significantly higher focus on “financial performance” as a goal, while both ranked stock and pasture performance similarly as a priority.
“Regenerative farmers tended to have a wider focus on nutrient type for their fertilisers, which was an exhaustive list for some, but had no synthetic fertiliser use,” said Howarth.
In contrast, conventional farmers tended to stick to the basics of N P K and S when it came to applications.
In both cases farmers wanted to reduce their chemical inputs but acknowledged a “needs must” approach when it came to using chemicals to deal with pests and diseases in crops and livestock.
“Regenerative farming fits well with the values and goals of the farmers surveyed, but conventional farmers placed a higher emphasis on profitability, and this creates a barrier,” said Howarth.
He said premium pricing for the products of regenerative farming would be required to encourage a switch from conventional farmers.
He also pointed to the vagaries about defining “regenerative” farming systems here in NZ.
“We need a narrative in NZ on how we define regen farming especially given the contrast between US feed systems and NZ’s pastoral systems.”
He pointed to work by Silver Fern Farms that found 79% of its farm suppliers said they felt they already fell into SFF’s definitions of regenerative farming.
“It is a difficult question to ask when we do not have a strict definition of what regenerative means for NZ. We need a more objective definition.”
The European Union is looking harder at regenerative systems and including them in its proposed “Green Deal”.
Howarth said it may well come down to the EU to determine and define exactly what does and does not constitute a “regenerative” system.
In Focus Podcast: Full Show | 10 May
This week we chat with with Katrina Roberts, who is the new Dairy Woman of the Year. She’s a Waikato vet, working with dairy farmers to not only maintain cow health but also improve the efficiency of their farm systems. Katrina also has a background in research and is keen to show aspiring veterinarians that cattle beat cats hands down when it comes to job satisfaction.
Federated Farmers arable chair David Birkett joins us to talk about the arable industry awards, which are open to nominations now. As well as grower of the year awards for maize, cereal and seed there are also special awards recognising teams, environmental endeavours and agronomy.
And, senior reporter Hugh Stringleman wraps up the dairy commodity season for us, following this week’s GDT auction.
