How should we define regenerative agriculture?

My answer to that question has evolved considerably over the past several years, and I believe it should continue to evolve as our understanding of plant physiology, soil microbiology, and ecosystem function advances.

When I first began working in regenerative agriculture, like many others, I focused primarily on the tangible practices associated with the movement: biodiversity, mimicking natural ecosystems, integrating livestock, planting diverse cover crops, minimizing tillage, and improving social equity within agricultural systems.

These practices remain important. However, my perspective has shifted as I have gained a deeper appreciation for the biological relationships that drive plant and soil health.

Research into processes such as rhizophagy, including the work of Dr. James White and colleagues, has been particularly influential in shaping my thinking. The rhizophagy hypothesis describes ways in which plants may interact with internalized microorganisms during nutrient acquisition. While aspects of these mechanisms and their broader agricultural significance remain under investigation, the research illustrates how much we still have to learn about plant–microbe relationships.

Combined with observations and data I have collected over the past two years, this growing body of research has led me to reconsider what regenerative farming should look like in practice.

At its core, I believe regenerative agriculture should focus on improving the biological, physical, and chemical functioning of the agricultural ecosystem while maintaining or improving crop performance.

Increasingly, I see maximizing healthy photosynthetic capacity and supporting beneficial plant–microbe relationships as central to achieving that objective.

Photosynthesis provides the energy that supports plant growth, root development, and the flow of carbon into the soil through root exudates and other pathways. These carbon inputs help sustain microbial communities, which in turn influence nutrient cycling, soil aggregation, and plant health.

Our job as regenerative growers is to create the conditions in which these relationships can function as effectively as possible.

What makes this moment particularly exciting is the expanding range of tools available to help us understand and manage these systems.

From increasingly sophisticated soil health assessments and sap analysis for targeted nutrient management to technologies such as Agrology sensors that are capable of monitoring soil respiration and carbon flux, we have opportunities to observe processes that were largely invisible to growers just a few decades ago.

These tools are not perfect, nor do they provide all the answers. But when used thoughtfully, they allow us to move beyond simply implementing regenerative practices and begin evaluating whether those practices are actually producing the outcomes we intend.

The distinction is critically important because planting a cover crop does not automatically improve soil health. Integrating livestock does not automatically regenerate a vineyard. Eliminating tillage does not necessarily resolve an existing soil structural problem.

The effectiveness of each practice depends on the condition of the system, the timing of its implementation, and the way it is managed.

I increasingly believe that some of the practices most closely associated with regenerative agriculture should be viewed as potential end goals rather than universal starting points.

Perhaps we transitioned to no-till too quickly. Perhaps our livestock integration strategy is creating more compaction than biological benefit. Perhaps our fertility program needs to be adjusted. Perhaps we need to fundamentally reconsider our approach to vineyard floor management.

The willingness to ask these questions, and to change course when the evidence supports doing so, is what separates regenerative agriculture as a philosophy of continuous improvement from regenerative agriculture as a checklist of prescribed practices.

One of my favorite reminders is:

“The only thing we should be dogmatic about is not being dogmatic.”

I believe that mentality should be foundational to regenerative farming.

We must be willing to challenge our assumptions, question established practices, and acknowledge when something is not working as intended.

Mistakes are inevitable when managing complex biological systems. What matters is our willingness to recognize them, learn from them, and use that knowledge to make better decisions.

Ultimately, I believe the future of regenerative agriculture lies not in rigid adherence to a particular set of practices, but in combining ecological principles, emerging science, practical field experience, and an open mind.

Just some food for thought – Jordan Lonborg