California officially adopted its first statewide definition of regenerative agriculture, but what the term actually means isn’t always clear.
I’m walking through a demonstration farm run by the Center for Land-Based Learning in Woodland.
The nonprofit uses Maples Farm to teach farming practices that improve soil health and support wildlife.
Mary Kimball is the executive director.
"I think of regenerative agriculture as something that is a continuum of improvement over the farm to improve your soil health," Kimball said, "both in terms of organic matter in the soil as well as just soil structure."
That flexibility is part of what makes regenerative agriculture difficult to define.
Soil health is one of eight target outcomes outlined in California’s definition. Animal welfare and sustainable pest management measurements also serve as indicators for reducing environmental harm.
"Most of these outcomes are actually measurable. It's about having indicators that are feasible in the landscape that can be scaled, and that can be measured across different landscapes."
UC Davis professor Amélie Gaudin has been researching resilient agroecosystems for 20 years. She says providing evidence of improvement is important for public funding.
She adds: "That's why these definitions become very tangible because it works hand in hand with funding, technical assistance and incentive programs for farmers to get cost-share help in implementing some of those practices."
But deciding on this framework wasn’t easy. The decision was preceded by two years of public debate mainly between organic growers and conventional farmers over a strict ban on synthetic pesticides.
Kimball says farmers will need a lot of support to transition farming practices. The state’s definition could lead to grants that would speed that up.
"Not everyone wants to define things," added Kimball, "but I think that when you do define things, at least as we were saying, it helps to start the conversation and that’s important."