Next Article in Journal
The Paradox of Sustainability in Higher Education: High Awareness but Limited Competency in Applying SDG 12 Principles
Previous Article in Journal
Economic Evaluation and Sustainable Optimisation of Envelope Parameters of Building Energy-Efficiency Design Standards in Cold Regions: A Case Study of Shijiazhuang, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 20
10.3390/su17209066
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Application of Regenerative Agriculture: A Review and Case Study in an Agrosilvopastoral Region

by
Raimundo Jiménez-Ballesta
1,*,
Jorge Mongil-Manso
2 and
Adrián Jiménez-Sánchez
3
1
Department of Geology and Geochemistry, Autónoma University of Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain
2
Department of Environment and Agroforestry, Faculty of Sciences and Arts, Forest, Water & Soil Research Group, Catholic University of Ávila, 05005 Ávila, Spain
3
Kerbest Foundation, 05005 Ávila, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(20), 9066; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209066
Submission received: 26 August 2025 / Revised: 30 September 2025 / Accepted: 10 October 2025 / Published: 13 October 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

While agriculture is experiencing localized crises, its indispensable role as the foundation of humanity’s food supply requires its uninterrupted functioning. This conventional system is therefore in a state of competition with alternative models, particularly agroecology, which offers a different paradigm for food production. Given this situation and the need to gather reliable information on regenerative agriculture (RA), this article provides a literature review on its principles, objectives, and edaphic benefits. Additionally, it presents a case study that offers practical knowledge of the techniques and actions implemented by an agroforestry farm in central Spain. With this goal, this article addresses key aspects of RA, such as the use of cover crops, and the integration of livestock, emphasizing its role in improving soil quality and increasing biodiversity, among other benefits. After reviewing numerous scientific articles, and despite widespread interest in RA, there is no commonly accepted definition, so there is a wide range of ways to define RA. Until a generalized definition is accepted, we advocate making proposals and implementing methods with extreme caution and based on the regional or local context in which it is defined. In this sense, based on the implementation of RA at the Kerbest Foundation farm, we propose regenerative agriculture as a set of agroecological actions and processes that fundamentally provide functional soil quality, food quality, ecosystem services, and, especially, healthy and economically profitable livestock farming. Based on all of the above, we can argue that RA is no longer merely a commitment made by farmers but, rather, an environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable solution grounded in scientific knowledge and technical experience.

1. Introduction

Across a wide range of business, agricultural, livestock, and political circles and forums, regenerative agriculture (RA), understood as the best way to practice agriculture, is at the forefront of current events. This form of agriculture is also well received in the world of academia and research, focusing on aspects related to sustainable soil management, soil quality, and the production of healthier foods, while conserving and restoring ecosystems.
The term “regenerative agriculture” encompasses a blend of tradition and modernity as an alternative approach to food production, based on a multidimensional approach that encompasses ecological, edaphic, and agricultural factors and principles in general; it also takes cultural and socioeconomic factors into consideration. The aim is for agroecosystems to function within their capacity for resilience, understood as the ability to provide and absorb harmful effects, but also to adapt and adequately recover their regenerative potential.
In the evolution of agriculture and livestock farming, perhaps the role of nature in supporting humanity has not received sufficient attention, and this is especially true in the case of soil. According to Ritchie and Roser [1], almost 38% of the surface is used for agriculture, while according to Teague [2], grasslands occupy approximately one-third of the Earth. However, today, many of these soils are under increasing pressure as they are intensively or poorly used, leading to degradation processes such as salinization, contamination, compaction, and erosion, thereby deteriorating their quality. Indeed, numerous anthropogenic activities sometimes lead to a loss of biodiversity [3] or an increase in pollution [4]. All of this can affect the sustainability, profitability, adaptation, and resilience of agroecosystem systems [5,6,7] causing a negative impact on both the environment and human health [8,9].
Academic literature has emphasized the fact that agricultural practices can improve soil carbon or crop yields [10]. By contrast, the excessive use of synthetic chemicals can result in the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of agroecosystems. The literature also shows that incorporating livestock into agricultural and agroforestry landscapes can boost soil carbon levels and offer a range of other advantages [11]. In this regard, regenerative agriculture, conservation agriculture, or organic agriculture, are some commonly used terms, especially when considering the word “sustainability” [2,7,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. For researchers such as Rodale [25], conventional agriculture degrades natural resources and is unable to meet growing needs.
On the other hand, there is growing interest in extensive grazing of goats and cattle as a complementary approach to soil restoration. Some scholars show that goats and cattle can effectively improve ecosystems invaded by woody vegetation [25,26]. Evidence also exists to suggest that using multiple restoration tools (i.e., clearing, grazing, etc.) is more beneficial than each approach alone [27,28,29,30].
Although conservation agriculture is more limited than regenerative agriculture, as will be discussed later, the only official data available on land area refers only to the former. Worldwide, the implementation of conservation agriculture has grown from 45 million hectares in 1999 to 157 million hectares in 2010 [31]. In Spain, more than 8% of arable land is cultivated using direct seeding (620,000 ha), while 26% of woody crops are cultivated using plant cover (1,300,000 ha). This places Spain at the forefront of Europe, with almost 2 million hectares under conservation agriculture (MAPA) [32].
In this context, it is necessary to gather reliable information on regenerative agriculture practices. That is why the objectives of this study are (1) to conduct a literature review on the concept of RA, its principles, objectives, and benefits, especially regarding soil quality; and (2) to propose a case study that provides practical knowledge about the main techniques, practices, and actions carried out on an agroforestry farm from central Spain.

2. Is There a Unique Definition of Regenerative Agriculture?

The data collated for this study was obtained by methodically reviewing the scientific literature and research reports available in a number of reputable academic databases, including Science Direct, Springer, PubMed, and Scopus. Also, Google Scholar and ResearchGate were employed to access scientific documents.
The concept of regenerative agriculture has appeared repeatedly in academic literature, with numerous studies providing information about it and its guiding principles. Although its origins date back to the 1970s and 1980s [25], and although there has been a resurgence of interest in the approach since 2010 [3,18,33,34], it was really in 2016 when it received a major boost and there was a real boom in the literature. However, to date, there is no universally accepted definition for the term regenerative agriculture. In fact, although the term regenerative agriculture is gaining more interest every day, its meaning is still quite ambiguous.
Francis and others [35] identified the most important principles of RA. Kamenetzky and Maybury [36] described it as working with nature, while Dahlberg [37], several years later, spoke of a period of transition. To date, there is no comprehensive and universally accepted definition in the literature [18]. This is probably because there is no clear distinction between regenerative agriculture and other alternative agricultural production systems, such as organic, sustainable, and agroecological agriculture [3].
In fact, the term “regenerative agriculture” was first coined by Gabel [38] and later by Rodale [39]. It was also used in the same year by Francis et al. [35]. This author, Robert Rodale, considered one of the creators of the concept of regenerative agriculture, described it as agriculture “that, at increasing levels of productivity, increases our biological production base of land and soil”. Since then, several researchers have proposed various definitions of regenerative agriculture, but there is no globally accepted definition, although the FAO proposes that the objective of RA is to go beyond the “do no harm” principles of sustainable agriculture [40].
It should also be noted that there are a number of terms that are synonymous or conceptually similar to regenerative agriculture. These include “agroecological agriculture,” “alternative agriculture,” “biodynamic agriculture,” “carbon farming,” “nature-inclusive agriculture,” “conservation agriculture,” “green agriculture,” “organic regenerative agriculture,” and “sustainable agriculture.” Such a variety of names leads to further confusion. Newton et al. [18] revealed the existence of numerous definitions and descriptions of RA, as some are based on processes (e.g., the use of cover crops, the integration of livestock, and the reduction or elimination of tillage), while others are based on outcomes (e.g., improving soil health, sequestering carbon, and increasing biodiversity) or combinations of both. On the other hand, Lal, Newton et al., and Khangura et al. [17,41,42], introduce the topic of RA using or relating various terms such as “soil health,” “biodiversity,” “agroecology,” “ecosystem service,” “sustainability,” “carbon sequestration,” “climate change,” “sustainable agriculture,” and “economy.” For [43], agroecology and regenerative agriculture represent the same idea.
In an attempt to propose a definition of RA, Schreefel et al. [7], based on 28 studies, proposed the following provisional definition of RA: “an approach to agriculture that uses soil conservation as an entry point to regenerate and contribute to multiple provisioning, regulating, and supporting services, with the aim of improving not only the environmental dimensions, but also the social and economic dimensions of sustainable food production.”

3. Principles and Objectives of Regenerative Agriculture

In its early days, regenerative agriculture resembled the concept of organic agriculture and low external inputs, integrating farm structuring [3]. Later, technologies related to nitrogen fixation, nutrient cycling, crop rotation, and integrated pest management became associated with it.
The fundamental principles of RA are reduced tillage to minimize soil disturbance, establishment of long-term cover crops, soil conservation, diversification of farming operations, integration of livestock, increased fertility, plant diversity, keeping plants and roots alive in the soil most of the time, and limiting or eliminating the use of synthetic compounds (such as herbicides and fertilizers) [17,42,44,45,46]. In the case of soil fertility, minerals, microorganisms, and organic matter play a fundamental role [47], with the latter acting as a “sponge,” providing structure and aeration, thereby increasing fertility and reducing nutrient loss through erosion. To these fundamental principles must be added the empowerment of farmers and animal welfare [46] and the consideration of RA as a “biomimetic” technology [47], as well as what we understand as adaptation to the local environment.
According to Sherwood and Uphoff and Giller et al. [3,48], RA aims to restore and improve soil health, while Elevitch et al. [14] emphasize that it contributes to soil fertility. It should be noted at this point that when the term soil quality is mentioned, it encompasses several aspects of soil health, including improved biodiversity [17], carbon sequestration [14], and organic matter accumulation [19], mitigating soil threats such as erosion and degradation [19,49]. It also includes measures aimed at improving water supply and quality, improving infiltration and water retention capacity [14]. RA has even been described as having the potential to mitigate climate change through carbon sequestration and the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions [23,41].
Thus, in addition to preserving and improving soil quality, the objectives of regenerative agriculture include the restoration of ecosystems. However, it should not be forgotten that the ultimate goal is to guarantee food production, quality, and distribution [7] in a sustainable manner. In this vein, there is no shortage of authors who believe that RA serves to minimize or even reverse soil degradation [5,6,19], i.e., maintaining healthy soils, for which efforts should be made to reduce the spatial and temporal events of bare soil and diversify cropping systems with the integration of livestock. And, although it is sometimes difficult to understand, one of the objectives of RA is to increase, rather than decrease, productive resources, but within the biological balances of the agroecosystem [26].
The ultimate goal of regenerative agriculture is to ensure that the soil is fertile and remains so for a long time. Therefore, its benefits must be understood above all in the medium to long term. However, RA has been questioned and criticized for its ambiguity as a guiding concept, and is therefore currently the subject of debate, as it has not matured sufficiently for a clear definition to emerge or for its supposed benefits to have been rigorously tested.

4. Advantages and Benefits of Regenerative Agriculture

Supporters of RA claim that these methods will prevent soil erosion and depletion, provide crops with adequate nutrients, increase farmers’ income and improve human health [3,7,37,46,50,51,52,53]. The soil, agronomic, and environmental benefits of RA are summarized in Table 1.
In addition to all this, RA aims to be economically profitable, create jobs, and, if possible, be an element of social cohesion.

5. Case Study: Kerbest Farm

At Kerbest farm, beyond the conservation agriculture approach to reducing negative impacts on soil (mainly through minimum tillage, plant cover, and crop rotation), a broader perspective is applied. In this framework, natural resources are not only conserved but also actively enhanced, particularly soil and biodiversity, as well as the water cycle. This approach essentially involves regenerating soil life and fostering more resilient and self-sufficient productive ecosystems, aligning with the principles of what is commonly referred to as regenerative agriculture.

5.1. Study Area

The farm under study is located in the region of La Moraña, in the municipality of El Oso, province of Ávila, Spain. The terrain is flat, with some hills, and its average altitude is 900 m above sea level. Geologically speaking, it is located within the Duero sedimentary basin, with outcropping materials consisting of Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary deposits from the Miocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene periods, predominantly composed of weakly consolidated arkoses, sandy-silty muds, and a scattered blanket of aeolian sands [54]. The region’s climate is distinguished by an average annual precipitation of 411 millimeters, an average annual temperature of 12.8 degrees Celsius, and a potential evapotranspiration of 730 millimeters per annum [55].
Very close to the estate is the El Oso lagoon, which is included in the regional catalog of wetlands of special interest in Castile and León and serves as a resting place for migratory birds. The vegetation in the lagoon area consists of Scirpoides holoschoenus (L.) Soják rushes, and the nearby grasslands include species such as Gagea villosa (M.Bieb.) Duby, Sagina maritima G.Don, Spergularia maritima (L.) Besser, Erysimum repandum L., Juncus fontanesii J.Gay ex Laharpe, Hainardia cylindrica (Willd.) Greuter, Hordeum hystrix Roth, and Puccinellia fasciculata (Torr.) E.P.Bicknell [56]. In addition to grasslands, the farm also has forest stands of mainly Pinus pinaster Ait., 1789, along with Pinus pinea L. and Quercus rotundifolia Lam. Rainfed cereal cultivation is very common in the region, as the climate and soils are very favorable for these crops. For all these reasons, the farm under study is a mosaic of grasslands, forests, and crops (Figure 1).

5.2. Regenerative Agriculture at Kerbest Farm

Kerbest farm is a livestock–agrosilvopastoral farm where research into conventional regenerative agriculture is being promoted with the help of agri-food system professionals and academics. For the farm’s managers, regenerative agriculture goes beyond sustainability. It involves implementing agricultural and livestock production through a set of sustainable management practices that aim to manage soils and promote their regeneration, while increasing productivity, biological diversity, wildlife welfare, and flora suitability as well as the agricultural and livestock economy.
In line with the principles of regenerative agriculture promoted by the Rodale Institute [57], Kerbest farm has revived traditional agricultural practices characteristic of rural areas, integrating traditional wisdom and skills to promote sustainable soil management. Management is structured around respect for nature and operationalized through the frameworks of sustainability [58] and permaculture [59], whereby animal–plant interactions are employed to maximize resource-use efficiency while maintaining continuity with established traditions of family ancestors. To this end, the connections between traditional agroforestry practices in the area are examined as a basis for the application of RA, with particular emphasis on its agrosilvopastoral components.
With this in mind, the principle governing the activities on the agroforestry farm under study is that livestock farming should play a key role in regenerative agriculture, so that livestock farming and agriculture work in harmony with nature. In addition to being a productive system, the aim is to maintain and restore soil quality within the context of the traditional agrosilvopastoral system of the area, seeking to leave natural resources such as soil, vegetation, and water in the best possible condition for future generations.
Although livestock farming has been accused of having a number of negative impacts on the environment and human well-being, various studies, such as those carried out by [60,61,62], point out that ruminant livestock provide a number of benefits for both humans and the environment. With proper regenerative management of both crops and grazing, ruminants facilitate the provision of essential ecosystem services such as increased carbon sequestration in the soil, reduced environmental damage, and overall greenhouse gas emissions [61,62,63]. Table 2 and Figure 2 show the principles for action on Kerbest farm.
Under this principle, the farm promotes and protects the relationships between soil as a natural resource, water bodies, and livestock, under an integrative approach, with humans acting as caretakers. We therefore understand that regenerative agriculture should focus on developing healthy soils through traditional and less traditional practices such as cover crops, intercropping, crop rotation, conservation tillage, and, especially, mixed crop and livestock systems, as highlighted by authors such as [64,65,66,67,68,69]. At the soil level, one of the basic principles is to limit mechanical disturbance of the soil, which is beneficial in preserving physical and biological structures, combined with a consistent reduction in synthetic inputs (chemical fertilizers and/or pesticides). Soil fertility and resilience play a central role in the RA practiced at Kerbest, while livestock play a vital role in increasing grass production through rotational grazing, as pointed out by Lal [41].
On the other hand, the farm seeks to boost ecosystem and economic services through the following:
  • Improvements in soil quality and fertility, which allow for the production of better food and better pastures for livestock. This will result in better quality milk and meat, while improving yields.
  • Improvement in biodiversity in the soil, air, and water.
  • Reducing soil degradation processes, such as erosion.
  • Reducing the risk of soil and water contamination.
  • Improving the water retention capacity of the soil.
  • Economic savings by reducing the use of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.
Finally, it should be noted that the farm under study strives to ensure that the expansion of agriculture, livestock farming, forestry, urbanization, and other human activities that involve habitat loss do not affect the grasslands. In other words, the natural habitats of the grasslands, as well as the species, often rare, found in them, have been protected, rehabilitated, and restored. The science of grassland restoration is very much present in ongoing actions and continues to gain ground, contributing new methodologies, technologies, and models [70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77].
To achieve all these objectives, a series of practices and actions is carried out at Kerbest farm that are in line with the philosophy of RA (Table 3). It is expected that, through these practices, the desired changes in the soil, which are already beginning to be observed, will become widespread in the medium to long term. These changes include an increase in organic matter with a darker color in the surface horizon, improved water infiltration and retention, enhanced soil biology (earthworms, mycorrhizae, etc.), reduced compaction, and stabilization of soil structure.
Table 3. Lines of action on which the agroforestry principles and practices carried out in harmony with nature in La Moraña are based (regenerative agriculture in Kerbest).
Table 3. Lines of action on which the agroforestry principles and practices carried out in harmony with nature in La Moraña are based (regenerative agriculture in Kerbest).
PracticeImage
Illustrative photos of the combined use of forest, crop systems, and livestock, promoting silvopastoral use, so that trees, crops, and livestock coexist in an integrated manner with traditional grazing [17,44,78,79]. Nature cannot function without animals. This generates various types of benefits such as water conservation and reduced soil erosion [2,14,62].Sustainability 17 09066 i001
Sustainability 17 09066 i002
Frequent use of cover crops by adding mulch to the soil [20,80]. In general, minimal tillage is used for weed control in the spring. So that the soil is not completely bare in the summer (in addition to having no living roots), other crops such as sunflowers are planted. This crop has a taproot that helps loosen the deep layers, or what is known as the “plow pan.”Sustainability 17 09066 i003
Microsilo. At Kerbest, silage is used for fodder preservation, with the main objective of maintaining the original nutritional value of the fodder, minimizing losses, and preventing the formation of toxic products that could harm the animals’ health [81,82].Sustainability 17 09066 i004
The aim is to carry out minimal tillage operations, thereby reducing soil disturbance and improving nutrient distribution. This helps protect and improve soil structure and retain much-needed water during dry summer periods, but, above all, it promotes carbon retention. To this end, efforts are made to minimize tillage and reduce traffic, reducing the number of plow passes or agricultural machinery in general, while maintaining surface organic amendments [17,44,48,57,78,83,84,85,86].Sustainability 17 09066 i005
Help reduce the use of chemical fertilizers through livestock farming, as the manure produced daily benefits the soil. In addition, crop residues act as a true natural fertilizer (nutrients), while protecting and promoting biodiversity. At Kerbest, chemical and synthetic inputs have been eliminated and replaced with organic fertilizers [5,84,86].Sustainability 17 09066 i006
Avoid poor grazing practices, as these lead to soil compaction and reduced infiltration rates, which exacerbates the availability of soil water for plants. Promote grazing rotation to maintain or restore soil function and resilience, thereby minimizing both soil erosion and nutrient loss [18,87,88,89,90]. Rotational grazing is carried out on a daily basis, consisting of choosing the right time for livestock to graze on a specific plot of land based on the regrowth of the grass and the needs and welfare of the animals. Kerbest promotes the preservation of the biological life system of the soil by adopting sustainable agricultural practices that involve increasing soil organic matter, protecting it from erosion, and promoting biodiversity through crop rotation. This image shows a mobile drinking trough that helps control livestock management.Sustainability 17 09066 i007
Prioritize the use of animal manure over synthetic fertilizers. In practice, slurry and pig manure are primarily applied. Indeed, in plots with very low organic matter levels, composted manure is added to increase the organic matter level and thus improve water retention, cation exchange capacity, soil structure, and fluffiness. The compost is generated on pig farms (owned by Kerbest) located in the same area, thus promoting a circular economy. The process consists of taking the solid fraction of the slurry, which is mechanically separated, and mixing it with straw litter manure. This solid fraction contains most of the organic matter and a small portion of the nitrogen [24,43,91].Sustainability 17 09066 i008
Sustainability 17 09066 i009
An area with pine trees, sown with local rye, spreading the seed with a fertilizer spreader. Once the entire soil is covered with seed, cows are brought in to move the soil with their hooves to bury the seed, with unifeed carts distributed throughout the different areas each day.Sustainability 17 09066 i010
Keep the soil covered at all times, eliminating spatial and temporal events of bare soil [17,57,78,83,84,85,86]. When crops such as ryegrass are in the stem elongation phase and before heading (the optimal time for grazing), the cows are brought in to graze, moving them with electric fencing each day. By grazing before heading, the crop regrows. This cycle is repeated three times, from February to June, so they have been able to eat it three times, in addition to fertilizing the area with their manure.Sustainability 17 09066 i011
One of the tasks carried out is to quantify production and estimate consumption per cow [17,84,85,86]. Specifically, a 10-hectare plot planted with ryegrass is studied. The photo shows a 0.25 m2 square, where the forage produced is calculated by cutting and weighing (2.4 kg/m2). Each cow eats around 10% of its weight daily, which is equivalent to about 45 kg per cow. For 39 cows (those that graze in this area), 731 m2 is needed daily (39 cows × 45 kg = 1755 kg of daily feed/2.4 kg = 731 m2).Sustainability 17 09066 i012
Sustainability 17 09066 i013
Respect the environment and the natural surroundings of the area, which has high ecological value, especially due to its proximity to El Oso lagoon, which is of great importance for birdlife. This contributes to the protection of wetlands [91] by maintaining adequate water flow. Specifically, avoid filling, burning, introducing exotic species, etc., within semi-lagoon areas such as the one observed, as they tend to dry out, at least superficially, during dry summer periods.Sustainability 17 09066 i014
Sustainability 17 09066 i015
Finally, as noted by Al-Kaisi and Lal [92], advancing new research initiatives and technology transfer, supported by robust policy coordination, is essential. At the same time, farmers must be encouraged to cultivate in harmony with the environment rather than exploit it, as underscored by Burns [93]. More attention should also be devoted to the sustainability of food systems in terms of production and the environment [94]. Although we already have some data on soil quality [11,95], we hope to continue researching, and consequently, providing data on biodiversity measures and/or productivity outcomes.

6. Conclusions

In many scientific and sociopolitical forums, there is discussion about the crisis in agriculture. Contributing factors include climate change and water scarcity, alongside socioeconomic challenges such as a lack of profitability, international competition, and the aging rural population. However, at least in many regions globally, agriculture is neither in crisis nor can it be, owing to its irreplaceable role in producing food and other raw materials. The increasing environmental constraints being imposed on productive systems in developed countries necessitate the search for solutions that align production with environmental respect (agroecology). These solutions vary in their philosophy, concept, and application, but regenerative agriculture is arguably the most comprehensive and holistic. This review article addresses key aspects of regenerative agriculture, such as integrating livestock, which is crucial for enhancing soil quality and increasing biodiversity.
Regenerative agricultural practices are being implemented at the Kerbest Foundation farm. Used here as a case study, we propose this type of agriculture as a pathway toward sustainable food systems. Regenerative agriculture is understood as a set of agroecological actions and processes that enhance soil functionality, improve food quality, support ecosystem services, and, critically, promote livestock farming that is both healthy and economically viable. Regenerative agriculture offers innovative and motivating elements for integrating traditional agricultural practices.
In line with this, Kerbest farm adopts and applies practices aimed at contributing to the development of more resilient, environmentally and agricultural systems, fostering soil conservation and regeneration, as well as the sustainability of local crops and livestock. To this end, we combine a series of principles primarily focused on soil conservation, with the objective of caring for and improving soil health, thereby contributing to enhanced ecosystem functions and promoting better socioeconomic outcomes. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that for regenerative agriculture to succeed, it must gain consumer acceptance.
This review reveals considerable variation in how regenerative agriculture is defined. Until a generalized definition is accepted, we advocate for proposing and implementing methods with extreme caution and based on the specific regional or local context. From the analysis presented above, we can conclude that regenerative agriculture is no longer just a compromise made by farmers or producers in general. Instead, it has evolved into a socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable solution, grounded in both the scientific knowledge and the technical experience gained from field practice.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: R.J.-B. and J.M.-M.; methodology R.J.-B., J.M.-M., and A.J.-S.; software, J.M.-M.; validation, R.J.-B. and J.M.-M.; investigation, R.J.-B. and J.M.-M.; resources, A.J.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, R.J.-B., J.M.-M., and A.J.-S.; writing—review and editing, R.J.-B., J.M.-M., and A.J.-S.; supervision, R.J.-B. and J.M.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Kerbest Foundation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data and materials will be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Mr. Adrian Jiménez-Sánchez was employed by Kerbest Foundation. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. Land Use. Our World in Data. 2013. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/land (accessed on 5 July 2025).
  2. Teague, R.; Barnes, M. Grazing management that regenerates ecosystem function and grazing land livelihoods. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 2017, 34, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Giller, K.E.; Hijbeek, R.; Andersson, J.A.; Sumberg, J. Regenerative Agriculture: An agronomic perspective. Outlook Agric. 2021, 50, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Jiménez-Ballesta, R. Introducción a la Contaminación de Suelos; Ediciones Mundi-Prensa: Madrid, Spain, 2017; ISBN 978-84-8476-789-3. [Google Scholar]
  5. Gosnell, H.; Gill, N.; Voyer, M. Transformational adaptation on the farm: Processes of change and persistence in transitions to ‘climate-smart’ regenerative agriculture. Glob. Environ. Change 2019, 59, 101965. [Google Scholar]
  6. Luján-Soto, R.; Cuéllar-Padilla, M.; de Vente, J. Participatory selection of soil quality indicators for monitoring the impacts of regenerative agriculture on ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 45, 101157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Schreefel, L.; Schulte, R.P.O.; de Boer, I.J.M.; Schrijver, A.P.; van Zanten, H.H.E. Regenerative Agriculture—The Soil Is the Base. Glob. Food Secur. 2020, 26, 100404. [Google Scholar]
  8. Wratten, S.D.; Shields, M.W.; González-Chang, M. Prospects for regenerative agriculture in Chile. Agro Sur 2019, 47, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Luján-Soto, R.; Martínez-Mena, M.; Cuéllar-Padilla, M.; de Vente, J. Restoring soil quality of woody agroecosystems in Mediterranean drylands through regenerative agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 306, 107191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dutta, A.; Bhattacharyya, R.; Jiménez-Ballesta, R.; Dey, A.; Saha, N.D.; Kumar, S.; Nath, C.P.; Prakash, V.; Jatav, S.S.; Patra, A. Conventional and Zero Tillage with Residue Management in Rice–Wheat System in the Indo-Gangetic Plains: Impact on Thermal Sensitivity of Soil Organic Carbon Respiration and Enzyme Activity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 810. [Google Scholar]
  11. Alvarez-Castellanos, M.P.; Escudero-Campos, L.; Mongil-Manso, J.; San Jose, F.J.; Jiménez-Sánchez, A.; Jiménez-Ballesta, R. Organic Carbon Storage in Waterlogging Soils in Ávila, Spain: A Traditional Agrosilvopastoral Region. Land 2024, 13, 1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Colley, T.A.; Olsen, S.I.; Birkved, M.; Hauschild, M.Z. Delta Life Cycle Assessment of Regenerative Agriculture in a Sheep Farming System. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2020, 16, 282–290. [Google Scholar]
  13. Duncan, T.; Falloon, B. Case Study: Taranaki Farm Regenerative Agriculture. Pathways to Integrated Ecological Farming. In Land Restoration; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; p. 17. [Google Scholar]
  14. Elevitch, C.R.; Mazaroli, D.N.; Ragone, D. Agroforestry Standards for Regenerative Agriculture. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hawkin, P. Regenerative Agriculture, 2019. | Drawdown [WWW Document]. Available online: https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/regenerative-agriculture (accessed on 29 April 2019).
  16. Hodbod, J.; Barreteau, O.; Allen, C.; Ele Magda, D. Managing adaptively for multifunctionality in agricultural systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 183, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. LaCanne, C.E.; Lundgren, J.G. Regenerative agriculture: Merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Newton, P.; Civita, N.; Frankel-Goldwater, L.; Bartel, K.; Johns, C. What Is Regenerative Agriculture? A Review of Scholar and Practitioner Definitions Based on Processes and Outcomes. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 577723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rhodes, C.J. Feeding and healing the world: Through regenerative agriculture and permaculture. Sci. Prog. 2012, 95, 345–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rodale Institute. Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming; Rodale Institute: Kutztown, PA, USA, 2014; Available online: https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/rodale-white-paper.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  21. Shelef, O.; Weisberg, P.J.; Provenza, F.D. The Value of Native Plants and Local Production in an Era of Global Agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Strong, G. Regenerative agriculture: The case for dialogue with nature. In Biodiversity: Integrating Conservation and Production: Case Studies from Australian Farms, Forests and Fisheries; Lefroy, T., Bailey, K., Unwin, G., Norton, T., Eds.; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 2008; p. 13. [Google Scholar]
  23. Teague, W.R. Forages and Pastures Symposium: Cover Crops in Livestock Production: Whole-System Approach: Managing grazing to restore soil health and farm livelihoods. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96, 1519–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pellejero, G.; Rodríguez, R.; Tellería, M.; Gallego, L.; Aschkar, G.; Garcia-Navarro, F.J.; Jiménez-Ballesta, R. Organic fertilization enhances the crop yield and quality of zapallo tetsukabuto. Sci. Hortic. 2024, 338, 113766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rodale, R. Breaking New Ground—The Search for a Sustainable Agriculture. Futurist 1983, 1, 15–20. [Google Scholar]
  26. Yantes, A.M.; Reed, S.P.; Yang, A.M.; Montgomery, R.A. Oak savanna vegetation response to layered restoration approaches: Thinning, burning, and grazing. For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 537, 120931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Marchetto, S.; Wolf, T.M.; Larkin, D.J. The effectiveness of using targeted grazing for vegetation management: A meta-analysis. Restor. Ecol. 2021, 29, e13422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yantes, A.M.; Solberg, K.L.; Montgomery, R.A. Targeted cattle grazing for shrub control in woody-encroached oak savannas. Restor. Ecol. 2025, 33, e14368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bassett, T.J.; Landis, D.A.; Brudvig, L.A. Effects of experimental prescribed fire and tree thinning on oak savanna understory plant communities and ecosystem structure. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 464, 118047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Harrington, J.A.; Kathol, E. Responses of shrub midstory and herbaceous layers to managed grazing and fire in a North American savanna (oak woodland) and prairie landscape. Restor. Ecol. 2009, 17, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. AEACSV. Agricultura de Conservación. Asociación Española de Agricultura de Conservación Suelos Vivos. 2025. Available online: https://agriculturadeconservacion.org/la-ac-en-el-mundo (accessed on 18 June 2025).
  32. MAPAMA. Encuesta Nacional de Superficies y Rendimientos. Análisis de las Técnicas de Mantenimiento del Suelo y Métodos de Siembra en España; Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación: Madrid, Spain, 2015.
  33. Gordon, E.; Davila, F.; Riedy, C. Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture. Agric. Hum. Values 2007, 39, 809–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. British Ecological Society. Regenerative Agriculture in the UK: An Ecological Perspective; British Ecological Society: London, UK, 2025; ISBN 978-1-0369-1546-9. Available online: https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/our-policy-work/ (accessed on 5 July 2025).
  35. Francis, C.A.; Harwood, R.R.; Parr, J.F. The potential for regenerative agriculture in the developing world. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 1986, 1, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kamenetzky, M.; Maybury, R.H. Agriculture in harmony with nature. Sci. Public Policy 1989, 16, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dahlberg, K.A. A transition from agriculture to regenerative food systems. Futures 1994, 26, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gabel, M. Ho-Ping: A World Scenario for Food Production; World Game Institute: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  39. Rodale, R. Learning to Think Regeneratively. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 1986, 6, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zoveda, F.; Garcia, S.; Pandey, S.; Thomas, G.; Soto, D.; Bianchi, G.; Faures, J.M.; Griffin, J.; Lipper, L.; Vahanen, T.; et al. Building a Common Vision for Sustainable Food and Agriculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014; p. 56. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lal, R. Regenerative agriculture for food and climate. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2020, 75, 123A–124A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Khangura, R.; Ferris, D.; Wagg, C.; Bowyer, J. Regenerative Agriculture—A literature review on the practices and mechanisms used to improve soil health. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rhodes, C.J. The Imperative for Regenerative Agriculture. Sci. Prog. 2017, 100, 80–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Brown, G. Dirt to Soil: One Family’s Journey into Regenerative Agriculture; Chelsea Green: White River Junction, VT, USA, 2018; Available online: https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/dirt-to-soil/ (accessed on 5 July 2025).
  45. Landers, J.N.; de Freitas, P.L.; de Oliveira, M.C.; da Silva Neto, S.P.; Ralisch, R.; Kueneman, E.A. Next Steps for Conservation Agriculture. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tittonell, P.; El Mujtar, V.; Felix, G.; Kebede, Y.; Laborda, L.; Soto, R.L.; de Vente, J. Regenerative agriculture—Agroecology without politics? Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 844261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gremmen, B. Regenerative agriculture as a biomimetic technology. Outlook Agric. 2022, 51, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sherwood, S.; Uphoff, N. Soil health: Research, practice and policy for a more regenerative agriculture. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2000, 15, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Razzaghi, S. Can soil health management enhance carbon sequestration against climate change? In Management of Soil and Plant Health in The Era of Climate Change; Iksad Publications: Ankara, Turkey, 2024; pp. 41–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. De Otálora, X.D.; Epelde, L.; Arranz, J.; Garbisu, C.; Ruiz, R.; Mandaluniz, N. Regenerative rotational grazing management of dairy sheep increases springtime grass production and topsoil carbon storage. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 125, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schulte, L.A.; Dale, B.E.; Bozzetto, S.; Liebman, M.; Souza, G.M.; Haddad, N.; Richard, T.L.; Basso, B.; Brown, R.C.; Hilbert, J.A. Meeting global challenges with regenerative agriculture producing food and energy. Nat. Sustain. 2022, 5, 384–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rehberger, E.; West, P.C.; Spillane, C.; McKeown, P.C. What climate and environmental benefits of regenerative agriculture practices? an evidence review. Environ. Commun. Res. 2023, 5, 052001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Van Oudenhove, M.; Martínez-Mena, M.; Almagro, M.; Díaz-Pereira, E.; Carrillo, E.; de Vente, J.; Fernández-Soler, C.; Luján-Soto, R.; Boix-Fayos, C. The Impact of Regenerative Agriculture on Provisioning Ecosystem Services: An Example in Southeast Spain. Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2024, 30, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. IGME. Mapa Geológico Nacional a Escala 1:50.000. Hoja 481 (La Nava de Arévalo) y Memoria; IGME: Madrid, Spain, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  55. Martín-García, L.P. Flora y Vegetación del Término Municipal de El Oso (Ávila). CONAMA 10. 2010. Available online: http://www.conama10.vsf.es/conama10/download/files/CT%202010/40830.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2025).
  56. Barrera, I.; Carrasco y Salazar, M.A.; Cirujano, S.; Sánchez-Sánchez, J.; Velayos, M. Plantas de la comarca de La Moraña (Ávila, España). Stud. Bot. 1986, 5, 149–153. [Google Scholar]
  57. Sahu, G.; Das, S. Regenerative Agriculture: Future of Sustainable Food Production. Biot. Res. Today 2014, 2, 745–748. [Google Scholar]
  58. Restrepo Rivera, J. Manual Práctico El A, B, C de la Agricultura Orgánica y Harina de Rocas; SIMAS: Managua, Nicaragua, 2008; 262p, Available online: https://caminosostenible.org/ (accessed on 4 April 2025).
  59. Mollison, B. Introducción a La Permacultura; Ten Speed Press: Berekely, CA, USA, 1978; Available online: https://consorcioagroecologico.pe/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/COMPILACION-DE-LIBROS-CAP.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2025).
  60. CAST. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply; Task Force Report 135; CAST: Ames, IA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  61. Janzen, H.H. What place for livestock on a re-greening earth? Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2010, 166–167, 783–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Teague, W.R.; Apfelbaum, S.; Lal, R.; Kreuter, U.P.; Rowntree, J.; Davies, C.; Conser, R.; Rasmussen, M.; Hatfield, J.; Wang, T.; et al. The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2016, 71, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Baradwal, H.; Ghosh, A.; Singh, A.K.; Jiménez-Ballesta, R.; Yadav, R.K.; Misra, S.; Siddanagouda Sannagoudar, M.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, R.V.; Singh, S.K.; et al. Soil Nutrient Dynamics under Silviculture, Silvipasture and Hortipasture as Alternate Land-Use Systems in Semi-Arid Environment. Forests 2023, 14, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sulc, R.M.; Tracy, B.F. Integrated Crop–Livestock Systems in the U.S. Corn Belt. Agron. J. 2007, 99, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gebru, H. A review on the comparative advantages of intercropping to mono-cropping system. J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2015, 5, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  66. Busari, M.A.; Kukal, S.S.; Kaur, A.; Bhatt, R.; Dulazi, A.A. Conservation tillage impacts on soil, crop and the environment. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2015, 3, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chen, W.; Huang, D.; Liu, N.; Zhang, Y.; Badgery, W.; Wang, X.; Shen, Y. Improved grazing management may increase soil carbon sequestration in temperate steppe. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 10892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kaye, J.P.; Quemada, M. Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate change—A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rui, Y.; Jackson, R.D.; Cotrufo, M.F.; Sanford, G.R.; Spiesman, B.J.; Deiss, L.; Culman, S.W.; Liang, C.; Ruark, M.D. Persistent soil carbon enhanced in Mollisols by well-managed grasslands but not annual grain or dairy forage cropping systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119, e2118931119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Xu, N.; Bhadha, J.H.; Rabbany, A.; Swanson, S. Soil Health Assessment of Two Regenerative Farming Practices on Sandy Soils. Sustain. Agric. Res. 2019, 8, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Clewell, A.F.; Aronson, J. Ecological Restoration: Principles, Values, and Structure of an Emerging Profession; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  72. Dunwiddie, P.W.; Bakker, J.D. The future of restoration and management of prairie-oak ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Sci. 2011, 85, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Greipsson, S. Restoration Ecology; Jones and Bartlett Learning: Sudbury, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  74. Kirkman, L.K.; Coffey, K.L.; Mitchell, R.J.; Moser, E.B. Ground cover recovery patterns and life-history traits: Implications for restoration obstacles and opportunities in a species-rich savanna. J. Ecol. 2004, 92, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mandle, L.; Bufford, J.L.; Schmidt, I.B.; Daehler, C.C. Woody exotic plant invasions and fire: Reciprocal impacts and consequences for native ecosystems. Biol. Invasions 2011, 13, 1815–1827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ansley, R.J.; Castellano, M.J. Strategies for savanna restoration in the southern Great Plains: Effects of fire and herbicides. Restor. Ecol. 2006, 14, 420–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Dudley, N.; Eufemia, L.; Fleckenstein, M.; Periago, M.E.; Petersen, I.; Timmers, J.F. Grasslands and savannahs in the UN decade on ecosystem restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2020, 28, 1313–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. General Mills. Regenerative Agriculture. 2025. Available online: https://www.generalmills.com/en/Responsibility/Sustainability/Regenerative-agriculture (accessed on 6 August 2025).
  79. Olaniyan, C.; Ujah, G.; Ogunsola, M.; Afanwoubo, B. Integrating Trees into Agricultural Landscapes: Benefits and Challenges of Agroforestry Systems. Int. J. Agric. Earth Sci. (IJAES) 2024, 10, 94–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Pisciotta, A.; Di Lorenzo, R.; Novara, A.; Laudicina, V.A.; Barone, E.; Santoro, A.; Gristina, L.; Barbagallo, M.G. Cover crop and pruning residue management to reduce nitrogen mineral fertilization in Mediterranean vineyards. Agronomy 2021, 11, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bernardes, T.F. Advances in silage sealing. In Advances in Silage Production and Utilization; Da Silva, T., Santos, E.M., Eds.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2016; Volume 1, pp. 53–62. [Google Scholar]
  82. Bernardes, T.F.; Daniel, J.L.P.; Adesogan, A.T.; McAllister, T.A.; Drouin, P.; Nussio, L.G.; Huhtanen, P.; Tremblay, G.F.; Bélanger, G.; Cai, Y. Silage review: Unique challenges of silages made in hot and cold regions. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 4001–4019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Jug, D.; Jug, I.; Brozović, B.; Šeremešić, S.; Dolijanović, Ž.; Zsembeli, J.; Ujj, A.; Marjanovic, J.; Smutny, V.; Dušková, S.; et al. Conservation Soil Tillage: Bridging Science and Farmer Expectations—An Overview from Southern to Northern Europe. Agriculture 2025, 15, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Brown, G. Regeneration of Our Lands: A Producer’s Perspective. 2016. TEDxGrandForks. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfTZ0rnowcc (accessed on 6 August 2025).
  85. California State University. What is Regenerative Agriculture? 2017. Available online: https://www.csuchico.edu/regenerativeagriculture/_assets/documents/ra101-reg-Sagdefinition.pdf (accessed on 6 August 2025).
  86. Drawdown. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. Penguin Books. [An Online Version also Provides Technical Summaries]. 2017. Available online: https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food (accessed on 5 August 2025).
  87. Ritter, W.F. Reducing impacts of non-point source pollution from agriculture. J. Environ. Sci. Health 1988, 23, 645–667. [Google Scholar]
  88. Sovell, L.A.; Vondracek, B.; Frost, J.A.; Mumford, K.G. Impacts of rotational grazing and riparian buffers on physio-chemical and biological characteristics of Southeastern Minnesota, USA, Streams. Environ. Manag. 2000, 26, 629–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Teague, W.R.; Dowhower, S.L.; Baker, S.A.; Haile, N.; DeLaune, P.; Conover, D. Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 141, 310–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Havstad, K.M.; Peters, D.P.C.; Skaggs, R.; Brown, J.; Bestelmeyer, B.; Fredrickson, E.; Herrick, J.; Wright, J. Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Pearson, C.J. Regenerative, Semiclosed Systems: A Priority for Twenty-First-Century Agriculture. BioScience 2007, 57, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Al-Kaisi, M.M.; Lal, R. Aligning science and policy of regenerative agriculture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2020, 84, 1808–1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Burns, E.A. Research Needed: Business Opportunities in the Farmer-led Regenerative Agriculture Movement in New Zealand. N. Z. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 2022, 18, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Dudek, M.; Rosa, A. Regenerative Agriculture as a Sustainable System of Food Production: Concepts, Conditions, Perceptions and Initial Implementations in Poland, Czechia and Slovakia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Jiménez-Ballesta, R.; San José, F.J.; Mongil-Manso, J.; Escudero-Campos, L.; Álvarez-Castellanos, M.P. Properties of Waterlogged Soils Developed on Arkose and Aeolian Sands in an Agro-Silvopastoral System. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2025, 76, e70055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 09066 g001
Figure 1. Satellite image showing the main habitats in Kerbest farm.
Figure 1. Satellite image showing the main habitats in Kerbest farm.
Sustainability 17 09066 g001
Sustainability 17 09066 g002
Figure 2. Principles, practices, and benefits of RA at Kerbest farm.
Figure 2. Principles, practices, and benefits of RA at Kerbest farm.
Sustainability 17 09066 g002
Table 1. Summary of the edaphic, agronomic, and environmental benefits of regenerative agriculture.
Table 1. Summary of the edaphic, agronomic, and environmental benefits of regenerative agriculture.
It helps to conserve and restore soils by improving their physical, chemical, and biological quality. This is achieved by reducing compaction through reduced use of heavy machinery, increasing organic matter content, improving soil structure, and increasing nutrients (increased fertility).
It improves water infiltration and retention and reduces erosion and destruction of fertile soil. This makes farmland more resilient to inclement weather.
It reduces crop sensitivity and improves production.
It boosts pollinators and increases biodiversity overall, which also enhances the landscape’s appearance.
It mitigates climate change thanks to the fixation of organic carbon in soils, i.e., a decrease in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
It eliminates waste from conventional agriculture by avoiding the use of plastics, synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
It increases crop productivity and contributes to higher nutritional value in food.
It helps conserve natural habitats and biodiversity across landscapes.
Table 2. Action criteria on the farm under study.
Table 2. Action criteria on the farm under study.
PrinciplesExplanation
SilvopastoralismMaintenance of trees as a “secondary crop,” providing shade for livestock while capturing and retaining rainfall. In addition, tree roots improve soil health and forage nutrient quality.
Livestock movementDaily cattle movements with the aim of grazing the plants at their optimal grazing stage. After grazing, the land is left to rest, allowing it to regrow until it reaches its optimal grazing stage again.
Livestock diversityCoexistence of different types of livestock (Wagyu and Hereford cows, goats, horses), as diversity provides benefits in itself.
Cover cropsCover crops reduce erosion, fix atmospheric nitrogen, reduce nitrogen leaching, improve soil health, and alleviate soil surface warming.
Minimal tillageBy reducing excavation, removal, and turning of soil, carbon emissions are reduced, thereby increasing soil carbon while decreasing erosion and conserving soil moisture.
Crop diversityDiversity is considered a biological resource, but also an economic buffer. Crop rotation reduces the use of herbicides and, therefore, the contamination of surface and groundwater.
Minimal use of pesticidesThe aim is to minimize their use, given that the main problems of water pollution.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jiménez-Ballesta, R.; Mongil-Manso, J.; Jiménez-Sánchez, A. Application of Regenerative Agriculture: A Review and Case Study in an Agrosilvopastoral Region. Sustainability 2025, 17, 9066. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209066

AMA Style

Jiménez-Ballesta R, Mongil-Manso J, Jiménez-Sánchez A. Application of Regenerative Agriculture: A Review and Case Study in an Agrosilvopastoral Region. Sustainability. 2025; 17(20):9066. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209066

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jiménez-Ballesta, Raimundo, Jorge Mongil-Manso, and Adrián Jiménez-Sánchez. 2025. "Application of Regenerative Agriculture: A Review and Case Study in an Agrosilvopastoral Region" Sustainability 17, no. 20: 9066. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209066

APA Style

Jiménez-Ballesta, R., Mongil-Manso, J., & Jiménez-Sánchez, A. (2025). Application of Regenerative Agriculture: A Review and Case Study in an Agrosilvopastoral Region. Sustainability, 17(20), 9066. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209066

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop