Is Regenerative Agriculture a Dead End? Let’s Be Clear.

A recent YouTube video took aim at a blog I wrote defending Groundswell and the broader regenerative movement. Fair enough — critique is part of progress. But when it tips into mockery and misrepresentation, we lose the chance for a better discussion. So let’s unpack some of the claims made — and where they stray from what was actually said.

“If a company selling unscientific slop has any right to pontificate…”

He writes:

“…and ask if a company selling unscientific slop has any right to pontificate about what I may be doing as an individual in defence of my community…”

Let’s break that down.

First — we’re not selling slop.

We’re working with biology and nutrition, backed by replicated field trials, long-term customer results, and growing validation from institutions like NIAB. This is microbial science, applied to improve soil function, reduce synthetic inputs, and build long-term resilience. I’d invite anyone curious about our products — their contents or mode of action — to give me a ring. We’re an open book.

Second — this idea that a company has no right to ask questions?

That’s the same logic that says farmers shouldn’t challenge policymakers, or agronomists shouldn’t question researchers. Debate is the lifeblood of progress — and being part of a business doesn’t disqualify us from asking, “What’s your better idea?”

And lastly — I respect anyone who stands up for their community.

But standing for something doesn’t exempt you from scrutiny. That’s not personal — it’s principle. We’re all accountable for the ideas we promote, especially when we criticise others who are trying to move farming forward.

So no — I won’t apologise for asking, “What are you doing to help farming?” It wasn’t a personal dig. It was a genuine challenge. And it still stands.

---

“It’s not scientific” — “Actually, it’s ahead of the science.”

This was dismissed in the video as a meaningless phrase. But the reality is more grounded than that.

In farming, it’s common for practice to lead publication. Farmers often experiment, observe, and refine before universities catch up with replicated trials. That’s not anti-science — it’s how applied science works.

So when we say regenerative farming is “ahead of the science,” we’re not dodging scrutiny — we’re inviting it. We’re saying, “Look at what’s happening in these fields. Let’s study it properly.”

We’re not bypassing science — we’re building alongside it. And the gap between trial plots and field results is closing year by year.

---

 “There’s no clear profit improvement.”

That phrase from my article has been used as a punchline: “They admit it doesn’t work.”

But here’s the truth: profit doesn’t always show up on a P&L in Year One. Especially not when you’re:

• Reducing synthetic inputs

• Investing in soil biology

• Trialling new rotations or practices

Many farms are already seeing:

• Lower input bills

• Better crop resilience in dry years

• Improved trafficability and water holding

• Fewer pest and disease pressures

That doesn’t always mean a sudden jump in gross margin. But it does mean a stronger, more adaptable farm business over time — and that’s a kind of profit often overlooked.

Would I write the same sentence again? Maybe I’d add: “…yet.” Because the shift is happening. Slowly, but measurably.

---

“You work for a company – so you’re just selling something.”

Yes, I work for SFS. We provide biological inputs — and we’re open about that.

But here’s what gets missed:

I’m not just here to sell something. I’m first and foremost an advisor, a coach, and a translator of how soil and crop communicate. I’ve trained under some of the most knowledgeable teachers in soil ecology and agronomy, and I bring that understanding to the farms I work with.

What I — and SFS — want to do is share that knowledge and passion, so farmers can benefit from it in real, practical, and profitable ways.

We don’t promise miracles. We promise support, insight, and tools that help unlock what’s already in the field.

• We don’t push blanket prescriptions.

• We’re not interested in dependency.

• Our business is built on helping growers become more self-reliant, more resilient, and more confident in working with the biology of their soils.

So if you want to criticise our ideas — great. Let’s talk about data.

But dismissing anyone with a commercial arm as biased ignores the fact that every agronomist, merchant, and input supplier in farming is commercial — including those selling synthetic N, machinery, or fungicides.

What matters is whether you back up what you say — and whether it works in the field. That’s where we focus our energy.

---

“This movement claims the moral high ground — without proof or profit.”

The video paints regen as smug — as if we’re all saying: “Get on board or perish.”

But that’s not the tone of my article — and it’s not the reality I see.

Most farmers I know who are trialling regenerative practices aren’t dogmatic. They’re pragmatic.

They’re:

• Trying cover crops on a few fields

• Easing back on nitrogen

• Watching how the soil responds

• Asking: “Can I get more from biology and less from a bag?”

That’s not utopia. That’s experimentation.

And it’s the same spirit that’s driven every shift in agriculture — from GPS to glyphosate.

No one’s saying conventional farming is evil. We’re just asking: What comes next?

Because with fuel, fertiliser, and climate risks rising, carrying on as we are is also a gamble.

---

 “What are you doing to help farming?”

The video suggests that because I asked this question, I overstepped.

But it wasn’t a personal dig. It was — and still is — an honest question.

If you don’t like what Groundswell stands for… what’s your better idea? We’re listening.

Being angry at regenerative agriculture isn’t the same as having a plan.

---

A note on history, respect — and “woo woo”

In the video response, there’s a reference to an old photo of the Soil Fertility Services stand

— from the very first Groundswell.

Yes, we were there.

Not because it was trendy. But because we believed early on that soil biology deserved serious attention, we wanted to be part of the conversation from the ground up.

To reduce that contribution to “woo woo sales” is both inaccurate and unfair.

We’ve been trialling, listening, and working with growers long before this became a movement.

That photo isn’t something to mock — it’s something to respect, whether or not you agree with where regen has gone since.

And as for “woo woo”? Here’s what we’re actually working with:

• Free-living nitrogen fixers like Azotobacter

• Decomposers like Bacillus subtilis, amyloliquefaciens, and Trichoderma

• Stimulants like seaweed and molasses that promote microbial symbiosis

• Field trials focused on reducing nitrogen inputs without compromising yield

That’s not mysticism. That’s microbiology — and it’s being used, tested, and refined on real farms.

The real danger isn’t that people believe in fairy dust.

It's that they dismiss practical, evolving methods because they don’t fit the old model.

---

A quick note on tone and visibility

Just to clarify:

My original article didn’t name anyone.

It wasn’t a personal rebuttal. It was a response to a broader narrative that I felt misrepresented a movement many of us are exploring with open minds.

The video response, however, chose to show our article and company logo to a large audience — without asking for clarification, and without any context about who we are or what we do.

I don’t mind being challenged publicly. I don’t mind being “outed” as the author.

But I do think basic courtesy matters — especially if the goal is genuine debate, not just entertainment.

We’re happy to be part of the conversation.

Let’s just keep it a conversation, not a caricature.

---

In Summary

I wrote the original blog because I believe Groundswell — and regenerative agriculture more broadly — is asking questions we need to answer.

Not because it has all the solutions. But because it dares to try.

The YouTube video that I am referring to misrepresents that. It paints regen as a naïve, virtue-signalling movement. But in reality, it’s full of farmers who are trialling, tweaking, measuring, and sharing results.

We’re not asking for blind belief. We’re asking for a fair hearing — and for critics to engage with what’s happening in the field, not just what they fear might be.

Regenerative ag isn’t a dead end. It’s a fork in the road — and many of us are choosing to explore it with open eyes and soil on our boots.

And yes, it takes time.

But building soil isn’t a one-season fix.

Like I said before:

If you want instant returns — try crypto.

But if you’re farming for the long term, you know: real change starts under your feet — not online.

Thanks for reading,

Steve