At its heart, regenerative agriculture is simply modern agriculture
There is seemingly no bigger topic in farming currently than regenerative agriculture, and simultaneously few subjects which generate such a wide range of interpretations, combined with a very rapid development of diverse expectations.
At SRUC we are fortunate to have real experts who can speak with authority on enhancing biodiversity, soil health, greenhouse gas emissions, and a host of other areas that sit within ‘regenerative agriculture’. However, it is an area that necessarily must blend scientific knowledge, national ambition, and adoption on the ground across the wider industry. As Head of SAC Consulting, with staff working daily with farmers and crofters across Scotland, I see the risk that this ambiguity brings in terms of the rate of implementation and change.
I also see good practice in evidence all around us. Many farmers are already delivering outcomes that would readily be described as regenerative, but often seem overlooked because they were not adopted under the banner of regenerative agriculture. This seems at odds with genuine progress – if our objective is environmental improvement then outcomes matter more than labels.
The obvious challenge is agreeing on what we mean by ‘regenerative’. Asking industry colleagues for their own understanding of the term will get several different answers. The dictionary definition implies renewal or restoration, yet this suggests we are somehow seeking a return to a fixed point in our past, which is an overly simplistic objective amid a growing population.
Another challenge is in understanding the role that technology and scientific endeavour must play in providing the solution. Or the wider responsibility of the supply chain in a sector where primary producers must – to paraphrase John F Kennedy – ’buy retail, sell wholesale, and pay the haulage both ways’. Scotland’s farmers are custodians of land, but this should not mean that they are held solely accountable for the reversal of historical farming and land management practices which, in their time, were actively encouraged in the pursuit of an affordable and secure food supply for the population.
In any area where we urgently want to see progress, it is natural to focus on what needs to be done, rather than on what has been achieved already. If regenerative agriculture just means ‘farming in ways that will leave farmed land in consistently better condition each year’ with systems more resilient to changes in climate, where greenhouse gas emissions per unit of output are reducing, or where the conditions for improved biodiversity are delivered (all while maintaining a sustainable level of productivity against a backdrop of high welfare for both animals and workers), then we are already making huge strides as an industry.
Farming is a long-term game, where even 20 years is a relatively short time. To look at just one example, in the early 2000s, only six weeks of slurry storage was common on many dairy farms and slurry was normally applied from a height, using splash plates, all too often on to frozen ground. Today, not only do we understand the impact of diffuse pollution and GHG emissions on the environment, but also on the farmer’s pocket. Slurry is increasingly recognised as a valuable grass or crop nutrient source, investment in storage capacity allows applications to be timed to crop demand, and low-emission spreading equipment reduces nutrient losses and improves utilisation. Yet this change did not happen overnight – it took research, demonstration, trials, practical advice, regulation and, critically, investment. Capital grant schemes helped to accelerate the adoption of slurry storage and application systems, and farmers responded because the environmental case clearly aligned with the business case. Importantly, it also relied on effective knowledge exchange between researchers, advisers, and farmers themselves – something that remains just as important today if we are to accelerate the adoption of new practices.
Many of the environmental challenges we now seek to address developed over decades. It is unrealistic to expect them to be solved instantly. Equally, it is rarely effective to motivate change by criticising previous generations for operating with the knowledge and expectations of their time, or for criticism of current generations for not immediately implementing an often complex investment requiring knowledge, time, and capital.
Progress is most likely when people feel supported, rather than blamed, and valued for the role they can play. Today’s farmers are being asked to deliver more than ever before: food production, climate mitigation, climate adaptation, biodiversity enhancement, landscape management, animal welfare, rural employment, and downstream jobs. These are legitimate societal ambitions, but it should not surprise us that delivering them simultaneously can be challenging. To achieve this, we must recognise that farmers are at different stages of the journey. Some businesses are already well advanced in adopting new approaches and should be recognised for the progress they have made, while others are only beginning to consider change.
Farmers must have confidence that the proposed solutions are practical, evidence-based, and capable of delivering results with their land type, their livestock breeds, and their own farming system. People rarely become more willing to embrace risk when told that they are failing. They are far more likely to act when they feel equipped and supported to succeed. Building confidence is therefore every bit as important as providing information.
We must also recognise that regenerative practices often involve investment in infrastructure, machinery, skills, or time. Changes create cost and introduce risk. Though farmers may want to change their systems or practices, the reality is that any long-term investment is only possible when short-term viability is secure. Adapting to future challenges is essential for long-term sustainability, but no business succeeds if the process of adaptation itself threatens its survival.
Consumers increasingly demand sustainable food, retailers increasingly need to demonstrate environmental credentials and governments increasingly expect agriculture to deliver public benefits alongside food production. Farmers can (and should) play a leading role but expecting primary producers alone to absorb the costs of delivering varied and extensive public goods is unlikely to accelerate progress at the desired pace. If society requires more rapid adoption of different practices, we need serious conversations about how these costs are shared across the supply chain.
Equally, narratives which portray farming as inherently damaging, even well-intended attempts to convey urgency for change, can be counterproductive. Beyond alienating the very people whose participation is essential, they risk undermining consumer confidence in Scottish produce. In doing so, they impact the commercial feasibility of further environmental improvement. If we need farmers to invest more heavily in nature recovery, climate adaptation, and emissions reduction, then we must also maintain confidence in the value of what they produce, as well as the confidence of the farming community that there is a future for them to invest in.
For me, regenerative farming is not defined by adherence to a particular philosophy. It is about farming in a way that ensures the next generation receives the farm in better condition than their predecessors inherited it. I have yet to meet a farmer for whom this does not resonate.
The challenge for us all is not in deciding whether progress should happen, but how we accelerate and support it in a way that is practical, evidence-based, and economically sustainable. Lasting industry-wide change will not be achieved by a minority, however committed. The biggest gains will come when improved practices and adoption become mainstream across Scotland.
Farmers must own the concept of regenerative agriculture and remove the perception that it represents an alternative or ideological model of farming. At its heart, regenerative agriculture is simply modern agriculture: productive, environmentally responsible, resilient, high welfare and economically sustainable. The most successful farms of the future will not choose between food production, nature recovery, and climate resilience – they will deliver all three, routinely, considering their methods to be ‘just good farming’.
Perhaps the real challenge is not persuading farmers to become regenerative. It is recognising that many already are and helping the rest of the industry move further and faster in the same direction.
Chloe McCulloch, Head of SAC Consulting, ChloeMcCulloch@sac.co.uk
Posted by SAC Consulting on 29/07/2026
