Regenerative Agriculture Practices in Poland, Germany, and Belarus: A Comparative Assessment of Their Adoption
Department of Agriculture, Faculty of Technical Sciences, John Paul II University in Biała Podlaska, 21-500 Biała Podlaska, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(15), 7973; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18157973
Submission received: 26 June 2026
/
Revised: 31 July 2026
/
Accepted: 4 August 2026
/
Published: 6 August 2026
Abstract
Regenerative agriculture is increasingly promoted as a pathway towards sustainable food production, climate resilience, and the restoration of soil ecosystem functions. However, evidence on the actual uptake of regenerative practices and the factors influencing their adoption remains limited. This study compared the self-reported prevalence of 17 soil-health-oriented regenerative practices among farmers in Poland, Germany, and Belarus using a questionnaire survey conducted in 2025 (N = 150). The survey also examined farmers’ motivations, perceived barriers, knowledge sources, and definitions of regenerative agriculture. Adoption frequencies were assessed using a five-point Likert scale and analysed using non-parametric statistical methods. Several practices, including crop rotation and soil pH management, were widely implemented across all three countries and showed only slight variation. In contrast, more complex, system-based practices, such as agroforestry, biological soil monitoring, and crop–livestock integration, showed lower and more variable levels of adoption. Additional subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the observed cross-country patterns. Although some associations weakened after stratification, many significant differences persisted. Across all countries, improving soil health was the primary motivation for adopting regenerative agriculture, whereas financial constraints and limited equipment access were the main barriers. Digital media served as the primary source of knowledge about regenerative agriculture across the surveyed countries, although in Belarus, peers and neighbours also represented a highly important source of information. Farmers in all three countries expressed a preference for online communication channels for further learning about regenerative agriculture; however, Polish and Belarusian farmers prefer social media, whereas German farmers preferred webinars and dedicated websites. In-person training sessions also attracted considerable interest among Polish and Belarusian farmers, but were the least preferred information source among German respondents. On the basis of these results, targeted investment support and direct financial incentives appear to be key priorities for promoting the further uptake of regenerative agriculture across all surveyed countries. However, communication and knowledge-transfer strategies are likely to require greater adaptation to country-specific preferences, although digital media are likely to represent the most effective primary channel for disseminating information on regenerative agriculture.
1. Introduction
There has long been recognition of the need to implement alternative land management practices in agriculture that would support or increase productivity while simultaneously reducing soil degradation processes. In response to these challenges, increasing attention has been given to the concept of regenerative agriculture, which integrates productive farming with the restoration of environmental resources. This approach includes reduced tillage, increased soil cover through vegetation, greater crop diversity in rotations, and a system-wide approach to nutrient cycling [1,2]. Although multiple definitions exist in the literature, regenerative agriculture is most often defined as a management approach that prioritises soil health as a foundation for ecosystem restoration and the enhancement of ecosystem services. Regenerative agriculture differs from other sustainability-oriented farming approaches by placing the regeneration of ecosystem functions at the centre of farm management, with soil health treated as the key starting point. While conservation agriculture mainly aims to protect soil through reduced disturbance, continuous soil cover, and diversified crop rotations, regenerative agriculture extends this perspective by seeking to rebuild biodiversity, strengthen ecosystem resilience, and enhance carbon sequestration. Unlike organic farming, which primarily emphasizes the substitution of synthetic inputs with organic alternatives, regenerative agriculture focuses on the active regeneration of degraded agricultural resources and the restoration of soil biological functions. Similarly, while climate-smart agriculture integrates productivity goals with climate change adaptation and mitigation, using a range of modern approaches, regenerative agriculture places greater emphasis on rebuilding natural ecosystem functions and processes as the foundation of long-term resilience [3].
Synthesising these elements, regenerative agriculture can be broadly described as a farm management system aimed at improving soil health, enhancing biodiversity, increasing water retention, promoting carbon sequestration, and strengthening agroecosystem resilience while maintaining the economic viability of agricultural production [4,5]. This definition served as the conceptual starting point for formulating the assumptions adopted in this study. The most often cited practices include reduced or no-till systems, cover cropping, retention of crop residues, integrated crop-livestock systems, application of organic fertilisers, and practices supporting soil biological activity [4,6,7].
Evidence from temperate-climate conditions suggests that the application of these practices can contribute to better soil structure, higher soil organic carbon content, reduced erosion susceptibility, and improved infiltration and water-holding capacity [6,8]. Consequently, regenerative agriculture is increasingly recognised as a key approach supporting the long-term stability of agricultural production and the resilience of farming systems to climate change.
The importance of regenerative agriculture is especially clear in the context of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. This approach may contribute to goals related to food security, sustainable consumption and production patterns, climate change mitigation, and the conservation of terrestrial ecosystem [4]. Within the European context, it is also aligned with the goals of the European Union, including the European Green Deal, the Biodiversity Strategy, and the reformed Common Agricultural Policy, which increasingly incentivises environmentally and climate-friendly farming practices [8,9].
Comparing Poland, Germany, and Belarus offers a valuable research perspective. These countries share similar geographical locations, partly comparable climatic conditions, and similar soil characteristics (Luvisols and Cambisols dominate in Germany and Poland; Retisols and Luvisols in Belarus). However, they differ significantly in agricultural policy frameworks, economic development, and agrarian structures [10].
Poland and Germany are members of the European Union and take part in the Common Agricultural Policy; however, their agricultural sectors differ in average farm size, degree of specialisation, capital intensity, and the pace of structural change [11,12]. Germany is characterised by larger average farm sizes and a more technologically advanced agricultural sector, while family farms continue to play a significant role in Poland, despite ongoing processes of modernisation and land consolidation [11].
Belarus remains outside the European Union and has developed its agricultural sector under different institutional conditions. Despite the continued strong role of the state in agricultural governance, the share of private farms and market-oriented enterprises—often originating from former collective and state farms—has gradually increased in recent decades. The framework of agricultural policy has been defined, among others, by Presidential Decree No. 347 “On State Agricultural Policy” and the “Agrarian Business 2021–2025” programme. Currently, a Union State programme between Belarus and Russia is being implemented, aimed at developing a common agricultural policy [13,14].
Earlier studies show that the adoption of sustainable and regenerative practices depends not only on environmental conditions but also on access to advisory services, education, financial incentives, social norms, and perceived economic risk [15,16]. Across European Union member states, environmentally focused agricultural practices are promoted through eco-schemes, agri-environment-climate measures, and rural development programmes [9,10]. In Belarus, the support system differs in nature and is more closely aligned with the national model of agricultural governance [13].
While interest in regenerative agriculture continues to grow, the extent to which its principles are implemented in everyday farming practice remains an issue requiring further investigation, particularly from a comparative international perspective. Poland, Germany, and Belarus, despite their geographical proximity, operate under different economic and legal systems, which may influence the agronomic priorities of farmers.
This study provides a preliminary comparative analysis of regenerative practice implementation. We investigated farmers’ self-reported adoption rates, knowledge sources, motivations, barriers, and informational preferences. A key objective is to identify similarities and differences between the nations across these dimensions and to explore the implications of such variation for the wider uptake of regenerative agriculture. The analysis focuses on 17 specific soil-health-related practices drawn from the literature, which reflect selected core regenerative principles: crop diversification and rotation, permanent soil cover, maintenance of soil physicochemical properties, reduced use of synthetic inputs in favour of organic alternatives, and the enhancement of biological soil health.
To address these objectives, the present study is guided by three primary research expectations. First, we expect significant cross-country differences in the self-reported prevalence of regenerative agriculture practices among farmers in Poland, Germany, and Belarus, with basic agronomic practices exhibiting higher adoption rates than more complex, system-oriented ones. Second, these differences are hypothesized to remain robust even after controlling for important socio-demographic and structural characteristics such as gender, agricultural education, familiarity with regenerative agriculture, and farm management system. Finally, we anticipate that cross-country differences will be less pronounced among environmentally oriented farmers (i.e., those applying alternative farm management systems) compared to those using conventional systems.
2. Materials and Methods
To achieve the study’s aim, a questionnaire-based survey was designed. The survey was designed to obtain data on respondent and farm characteristics—including farm size, production type, farming experience, education, and gender—while also assessing farmers’ knowledge of and attitudes towards regenerative agriculture and their declared level of implementation of 17 farming practices. The set of practices was developed following a review of the scientific literature on regenerative agriculture. The selection was guided by the conceptual assumptions adopted in this study, and only those practices that consistently appeared as key components of regenerative farming systems were included. Particular emphasis was placed on practices concerning crop diversification, permanent soil cover, soil physicochemical management, reduced use of synthetic inputs, and the enhancement of biological soil health. A concise justification for the relevance and significance of each selected practice is provided in the Discussion section. Prior to its final distribution, the questionnaire was pre-tested with a small group of active farmers to ensure the clarity, comprehensibility, and practical relevance of the questions. The prevalence of declared adoption was measured using a five-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating “never,” 2 “rarely,” 3 “sometimes,” 4 “often,” and 5 “always,” while 0 indicated that the practice was not applicable to a given farm type. The internal consistency of the 17-item practice-adoption section of the questionnaire was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. The obtained coefficient indicated good reliability (α = 0.838, 95% CI: 0.798–0.873; N = 150). The studied practices are presented below in both abbreviated forms (used for concise presentation of the results) and full versions (as used in the survey).
- Concurrent cultivation in various locations“Simultaneous cultivation of different groups of plants in the same season, but in different locations (e.g., cereals, legumes, root crops, herbs).”
- Crop rotation“Changing crops on the same plots each season—crop rotation (e.g., after wheat, rapeseed, then potatoes, then soybeans).”
- Polycultures (mixed crops)“Sowing several species of plants simultaneously on the same plot—so-called polycultures (e.g., oats + lupin, maize + beans + pumpkin).”
- Year-round plant cover“Maintaining plant cover on arable fields throughout the year (living plants or crop residues—leaving stubble, mulching, covering the soil with cover crops)”.
- Catch crops after main harvest“Sowing crops after the main harvest (catch crops/cover crops) (e.g., directly after harvesting maize—mustard or phacelia).”
- Perennial/winter cover with living roots year-round“Using perennial crops or wintering cover crops so that roots remain alive throughout the year (e.g., permanent meadows, fodder plant mixtures, winter rye as a catch crop)”.
- Livestock on fields (during/after crops)“Introducing livestock onto fields during or after crop cultivation”.
- Rotational grazing (frequent moves between paddocks)“Rotational grazing of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, or goats are regularly—daily or every few days—moved between small pasture paddocks).”
- Agroforestry (trees/shrubs among crops)“Planting/maintaining trees and shrubs among crops or pastures, so-called agroforestry (e.g., alleys of fruit bushes in arable fields, scattered trees within fields)”.
- Farm design using natural processes“Planning the farm to maximise the use of natural processes (e.g., rainwater harvesting, composting).”
- Reducing synthetic inputs (e.g., mineral fertilisers, pesticides)“Careful minimisation of synthetic fertiliser and pesticide use (e.g., reducing mineral fertiliser doses, avoiding herbicides)”.
- Natural pest control (beneficial insects, biocontrol, traps)“Using natural plant protection methods (e.g., introducing beneficial insects, biological control agents, pest traps)”.
- Organic and natural fertilisers“Using organic fertilisers (e.g., manure, compost, slurry)”.
- Organic fertilisers—smaller doses, higher frequency“Applying organic fertilisers in smaller doses but more frequently (e.g., 20 t/ha of manure every 2 years instead of 40 t/ha every 4 years)”.
- Minimal soil disturbance (non-inversion tillage)“Minimal soil disturbance—shallow tillage or strip-tillage, i.e., without inverting soil layers (e.g., harrowing instead of ploughing).”
- Regular soil pH monitoring & adjustment (liming)“Regular measurement and adjustment of soil pH (liming) to maintain it within the optimal range for the crops being grown”.
- Monitoring soil biology (microbes, earthworms)“Monitoring soil biological activity (e.g., various soil tests indicating microbial vitality, checking earthworm density per m3).”
The study employed purposive sampling to recruit respondents directly involved in agricultural production. Distribution of the survey was conducted online through farming groups on social media, via direct invitations to farms and agricultural organisations, and in paper form to reach farmers not using digital media. Eligible participants were individuals who were actively engaged in the daily operation or management of a farm located in Poland, Germany, or Belarus. This approach allowed the inclusion of farm owners, family members working on farms, and employed agricultural workers with practical farming experience. Responses were collected throughout 2025, yielding fifty completed surveys per country, for a total comparative sample of 150 active farmers from Poland, Germany, and Belarus. Informed consent for participation was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Ethical review and approval were waived for this study by Institution Committee due to Legal Regulations (According to Polish national legislation, specifically the Act of 5 December 1996 on the Professions of Physician and Dentist (Ustawa z dnia 5 grudnia 1996 r. o zawodach lekarza i lekarza dentysty), ethical approval from a Bioethics Committee is mandatory only for studies classified as “medical experiments” (Article 21 and Article 29). As this research consisted of a non-interventional, anonymous survey concerning regenerative agriculture practices, and did not involve clinical, medical, or biological interventions on humans, it does not constitute a medical experiment under Polish law and is explicitly exempt from the requirement for bioethical committee approval.)
It should nevertheless be acknowledged that the online recruitment approach may have introduced a selection bias, as participants from specialized digital groups are likely more open to innovative agricultural practices.
Statistical analyses were performed using Statisty.app (https://statisty.app/). Given the ordinal nature of the five-point Likert scale and the significant departures from normality identified by the Shapiro–Wilk test across all variables, the data were summarized using medians and interquartile ranges (Q1–Q3). Accordingly, subsequent analyses were conducted using rank-based non-parametric statistical methods. Demographic characteristics were compared across the three countries using chi-square tests; where significant differences appeared, post hoc analyses were conducted by inspecting standardised residuals. The main analyses employed Kruskal–Wallis tests to compare regenerative practice adoption levels for each of the 17 proposed practices between Poland, Germany, and Belarus. Statistically significant results were followed by Dunn–Bonferroni with Bonferroni correction post hoc tests to identify pairwise differences. To account for demographic imbalances, subgroup analyses—such as comparing female and male farmers across the three countries separately—were also undertaken, using variables that previously showed significant differences among countries. A significance level of alpha = 0.05 was adopted for all analyses. Additionally, respondents were asked to complete an optional multiple-choice section addressing the following aspects: (1) “What are the main sources of your knowledge about regenerative agriculture?”, (2) “What motivates you to implement the practices mentioned in the survey?”, (3) “What hinders you from undertaking the practices mentioned in the survey?”, and (4) “If you are interested in regenerative agriculture, please indicate your preferred methods of acquiring information.” The distribution of these responses was visualised using stacked bar charts to compare the percentage distribution across the surveyed countries.
3. Results
3.1. Respondent and Farm Characteristics
The characteristics of the surveyed farmers and their holdings are presented in Table 1, which provides raw frequencies and percentages for each country. Table 2 reports the results of the statistical analysis, including chi2 test statistics and standardised residuals for significant between-group differences.
Overall, male respondents represented the majority of the sample (57.3%), although a higher proportion of female respondents was observed in Belarus (56.0%) than in Germany (32.0%) and Poland (34.0%). Farming experience was broadly balanced across the overall sample, with respondents having 0–5 years of experience constituting the largest group (30.0%); however, Belarus had the highest proportion of farmers in this category (44.0%). Formal agricultural education was reported by 64.0% of all respondents, with identical proportions in Germany and Poland (72.0% each), whereas in Belarus fewer than half of the respondents had an agricultural education (48.0%). Overall, 53.3% of farmers declared familiarity with the term regenerative agriculture. The highest level of familiarity was observed in Germany (64.0%) and Belarus (60.0%), while in Poland only 36.0% of respondents recognized the term. Medium-sized farms (10–50 ha) were the most common holding category in the overall sample (40.0%), with Poland showing the highest proportion of farms in this category (50.0%), whereas farms smaller than 10 ha were most common in Belarus (38.0%). Crop production and mixed farming were the predominant production types in the overall sample (47.3% and 41.3%, respectively), while specialised livestock farms accounted for only 10.0% of respondents. Finally, conventional farming systems predominated overall (66.0%), particularly in Poland (80.0%) and Belarus (70.0%), whereas Germany showed a more balanced distribution between conventional (48.0%) and alternative management systems (52.0%).
The results of the chi-square analyses are presented in Table 2. Statistically significant differences between countries were observed for gender (χ2 = 6.64, p = 0.036), possession of agricultural education (χ2 = 8.33, p = 0.015), familiarity with the term regenerative agriculture (χ2 = 9.21, p = 0.010), and farm management system (χ2 = 11.94, p = 0.003). Post hoc analyses based on standardized residuals indicated that Belarus was characterised by a higher proportion of female respondents and a lower proportion of respondents with agricultural education than expected, whereas Germany and Poland showed the opposite pattern. Farmers from Poland were significantly less likely to report familiarity with the term regenerative agriculture, while Germany showed a the highest proportion of respondents familiar with the concept. Conventional farming systems were notably overrepresented in Poland and underrepresented in Germany. No statistically significant differences between countries were detected for farming experience, farm size, or type of production (p > 0.05).
3.2. Comparison of Practice Popularity
The study design aimed to assess how frequently active farmers implement practices that improve soil quality, regardless of whether these practices are intentionally associated with regenerative agriculture. Table 3 presents median values together with the first and third quartiles (Q1 and Q3), reflecting the declared frequency of these practices across the surveyed countries, and reports the Kruskal–Wallis test results for cross-country comparisons. Table 4 extends this analysis by presenting Kruskal–Wallis p-values calculated separately within subgroups defined by variables that differed significantly between countries: gender, agricultural education, familiarity with the concept of regenerative agriculture, and farm management system. This subgroup analysis was used to assess whether the country-level differences observed in Table 3 remained evident after accounting for these potential confounding characteristics. Statistically significant results (p < 0.05) are shaded. The summary row at the bottom of Table 4 reports the number of practices with significant cross-country differences in each subgroup, thereby indicating where the observed country differences were most robust and where they were weakest.
3.3. Sources of Knowledge, Motivations, Limitations and Informational Preferences of Respondents
The questionnaire collected data on sources of knowledge, motivations, limitations, and informational preferences related to the implementation of regenerative practices. Respondents were allowed to select multiple answers reflecting their attitudes. The percentage distributions of responses are presented in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4.
The results show that online media—such as articles, videos, and social media platforms—were the primary sources through which farmers became familiar with the concepts and principles of regenerative agriculture (33.3% of Polish and German farmers and 20.7% of Belarusian farmers). Notably, in Belarus, neighbours and fellow farmers were an even more important source of information than digital media, as indicated by 24.1% of respondents. The most frequently reported motivation for implementing regenerative practices was improving soil health and fertility (23.1% of Polish farmers, 23.0% of Belarusian farmers, and 18.1% of German farmers), whereas meeting administrative or regulatory obligations received the fewest responses (5.6–7.7%). This may stem either from a mismatch between mandatory policy measures and actual regenerative farming principles or from a general perception among farmers that bureaucratic requirements provide insufficient motivation for practice adoption.
The most frequently reported concern regarding the adoption of regenerative practices was limited access to appropriate machinery and agricultural inputs. This barrier was indicated by 20.2% of respondents from Germany, 20.7% from Poland, and a notably higher proportion of 26.5% from Belarus. The least frequently reported concern among farmers in Poland and Belarus was market- or peer-induced pressure from fellow farmers or the wider agricultural sector (3.4% and 4.4%, respectively), whereas this issue was considerably more relevant among German farmers (13.2%). By contrast, German farmers were least concerned about a lack of adequate knowledge or advisory support (10.5%), whereas this represented a relatively important concern among Belarusian farmers (17.6%). When given the opportunity to specify other difficulties in an open-ended question, several German respondents offered more specific insights into the barriers preventing the adoption of regenerative methods. Economic viability was a primary concern, with one farmer noting that “if profitability in the current system is too low to cover costs, one does not introduce an unprofitable system”. Structural and management hurdles were also highlighted, including institutional scepticism from farm management: “the boss does not believe in new methods, being entrenched in his current opinions” and severe labour shortages coupled with scale challenges in alternative farming models: “we work as a community-supported agriculture cooperative (Solawi) and have a stable circle of consumers, but at present, it is still too small; labour in agriculture is also a problem and difficult to find”. Finally, biophysical and environmental constraints were mentioned, with one respondent pointing out that regenerative practices are “difficult to implement on our peat soils”.
Regarding preferred channels for obtaining further information on regenerative agriculture, preferences were more fragmented across the surveyed countries. Among Belarusian farmers, social media platforms emerged as the most frequently selected option. Belarusian farmers already use digital media widely to learn about regenerative agriculture, and social media is their most preferred channel for future information (29.8%). Therefore, promoting regenerative practices through social media and other digital channels in Belarus has strong potential However, in-person training sessions were also frequently selected by Belarusian farmers (27.7%). German respondents showed a preference for websites (21.4%) and webinars (18.8%) rather than social media, whereas Polish farmers placed equal importance on social media (20.5%) and traditional in-person training workshops (20.5%), the latter being the least preferred format among German respondents (13.4%). Articles in trade or scientific journals represented the least preferred informational channel among farmers in Belarus (2.1%) and Poland (9.8%), whereas they attracted greater interest among German farmers (17.0%).
4. Discussion
4.1. Differences and Similarities in Farmers’ Approaches to Regenerative Agriculture Across Countries
As discussed in the Introduction, regenerative agriculture is increasingly recognised as an important approach for addressing contemporary environmental and agricultural challenges. Although numerous definitions of the concept exist, the survey used in this study enabled respondents to express their own understanding of regenerative agriculture. In Germany, a clearly dominant association with modernity emerged: regenerative agriculture was perceived as “modern agriculture needed by the European Union and the Common Agricultural Policy” and as “modern agriculture that utilises the possibilities of recovering resources damaged by intensive production.” Interestingly, German respondents also recognised that this modernity draws on the past, referring to “modern agriculture utilising historical experiences.” This suggests that, for these respondents, innovation does not represent a break with tradition but rather its conscious continuation. Among the German responses, the key concept of “green bridges” (Grüne Brücken) also appeared. In line with the definition adopted in this study, this term refers to “living transitions between two successive crops, the primary objective of which is to ensure that the soil is continuously covered by vegetation and penetrated by living roots” [17]. This implies that, for German respondents, regenerative agriculture is not merely a collection of practices but, above all, the continuity of soil biological life.
In Poland, by contrast, the responses were more practical and oriented towards day-to-day farm management. One respondent stated: “Normally, I test the soil for pH and nutrients, and colloquially speaking, I apply mineral and organic fertilisers only as much as needed—or a farmer cannot afford to sow an excess of nutrients that are unnecessary in the soil.” This indicates that Polish farmers perceive regenerative agriculture primarily through the lens of rational fertiliser management, in which precisely adjusting doses to actual needs, rather than applying inputs in excess, is central. At the same time, however, a broader perspective also emerged, extending beyond yield alone: regenerative agriculture was understood as “responsibility for something more than just yield” and “wise crop management out of concern for both the yield and the introduction of organic matter, leaving the soil in good cultivation.” This suggests that Polish respondents combine economic considerations with genuine concern for soil quality and long-term fertility.
Among Belarusian farmers, although their responses were shorter, an ecosystem-based perspective was clearly evident. Respondents referred to the “use of diverse crops to improve the soil and increase yields” and emphasised that regenerative agriculture is that “which protects the ecosystem.” Thus, for Belarusian respondents, biodiversity and protection of the natural environment appear to be core elements, while these actions are also seen as contributing to farm productivity. The higher adoption of several regenerative practices in Belarus, despite the absence of EU agri-environmental subsidies, may reflect the persistence of more extensive farming systems and closer farmer-to-farmer knowledge networks. This suggests that economic incentives, while important, are not the sole drivers of practice adoption.
Additional insight is provided by responses concerning sources of knowledge, motivations, perceived barriers, and preferred methods of obtaining information about regenerative agriculture. Across all three countries, respondents indicated that knowledge about regenerative practices was acquired through a combination of formal and informal channels. However, differences were observed in the relative importance of these sources. While farmers from all countries relied heavily on online media, those from Germany and Poland ranked training courses, workshops, and conferences second. By contrast, Belarusian respondents identified peer farmers and local agricultural networks as crucial sources of knowledge, with agricultural advisory services also featuring prominently. This finding may partly explain why several regenerative practices were widely adopted in Belarus despite lower levels of formal institutional support than in the European Union member states. It suggests that farmer-to-farmer knowledge transfer and locally embedded practical experience may play an important role in encouraging the implementation of regenerative practices.
The motivational structure was remarkably consistent across countries. Improving soil health and fertility emerged as the most important driver of adoption, followed by expectations of reduced expenditure on fertilisers and crop protection, greater resilience to drought and disease, and improved long-term farm profitability. By contrast, compliance with administrative or regulatory requirements was rarely identified as a major motivation. These results indicate that regenerative practices are perceived primarily through the lens of agronomic and economic benefits rather than regulatory obligations. Earlier research, however, indicates that this association is not uniform and may depend on the particular agricultural practice under consideration. For example, in the case of cover crops, adoption has often been found to be driven mainly by policy requirements and financial incentives, while environmental motivations played a relatively limited role in explaining farmers’ decisions [18].
The analysis of perceived barriers provides further insight into the relatively limited implementation of some regenerative practices observed in the present study. The most frequently reported obstacles included limited access to specialised machinery and inputs, high implementation costs, and financial constraints. The qualitative comments provided by several respondents further highlighted concerns regarding profitability, labour availability, and site-specific environmental conditions. Together, these findings suggest that economic and practical considerations remain central determinants of adoption decisions, even among farmers who express positive attitudes toward regenerative agriculture.
Respondents’ preferred methods of obtaining further information also have practical implications for agricultural extension services and policymakers. While social media platforms were particularly popular among Belarusian and Polish farmers, German respondents showed a stronger preference for webinars and specialised websites. Across all countries, printed publications and trade or scientific journal articles were among the least preferred communication channels; however, they attracted comparatively greater interest among German farmers. These results indicate that future educational and advisory initiatives aimed at promoting regenerative agriculture should make greater use of digital communication tools while maintaining opportunities for direct interaction. Tailoring communication strategies to country-specific preferences may improve the effectiveness of knowledge transfer and support wider adoption of regenerative farming practices.
4.2. Adoption of Regenerative Agriculture Practices Across Countries and Their Agronomic Relevance
The first regenerative practice examined in this study was crop diversification, involving the cultivation of different crop groups within the same season but in separate locations (e.g., cereals, legumes, root crops, and herbs). Moving away from monoculture towards diversified cropping systems can facilitate the transition to crop rotation and contribute to increased biodiversity. Our empirical findings revealed no statistically significant differences between countries in the concurrent cultivation of different crop groups in separate locations (p = 0.995). Median values were identical across Belarus, Germany, and Poland, suggesting that diversification at the farm level represents a common agronomic strategy independent of national context.
Crop rotation involves the planned sequence of different crops grown on the same plots in successive seasons, for example, wheat followed by rapeseed, potatoes, and then soybeans. In light of current agronomic knowledge, it is considered a fundamental principle of sustainable soil management [19]. Crop diversification in a proper sequence helps prevent nutrient depletion, while diverse crop residues and root systems improve soil structure and support beneficial biological processes [20]. Crop rotation supports natural plant protection by disrupting pest and disease cycles, reducing the occurrence of soil-dwelling pests such as nematodes, wireworms, and cockchafer grubs [21]. Our results indicate that this practice was widely adopted in all three countries, with no statistically significant inter-country differences detected (p = 0.543). Since crop rotation is considered a conventional agronomic standard in many European farming systems, its popularity likely reflects general agricultural practice rather than deliberate implementation of regenerative farming principles. This may explain why demographic differences, including disparities in education and awareness of regenerative agriculture, did not substantially affect the results. Polish farmers exemplify this pattern, as they showed the highest Q1 and Q3 values despite having the statistically lowest familiarity with the concept of regenerative agriculture.
The implementation of polycultures refers to the simultaneous cultivation of multiple plant species on the same plot (e.g., oats and lupin; maize, beans, and pumpkin). Combining crops with complementary characteristics supports ecosystem resilience and reduces the risk of pest and disease outbreaks through diverse root systems and biological interactions [19]. Examples include intercropping cereals (e.g., maize or wheat) with legumes (e.g., beans), which combines complementary root systems and nutrient acquisition strategies. Cereals efficiently use nutrients from upper soil layers, while legumes improve soil fertility through nitrogen fixation, enhancing resource use efficiency and nutrient cycling [22]. In the present study, the simultaneous cultivation of multiple plant species on the same plot was the first regenerative practice for which statistically significant differences between countries emerged. Belarusian farmers reported significantly higher adoption of polycultures than both German and Polish farmers (p < 0.001). Importantly, these differences remained significant across nearly all subgroup analyses; the effect was no longer detectable only among unconventional farmers and respondents unfamiliar with regenerative agriculture.
Bare soil, devoid of plant residues and vegetation, is far more vulnerable to degradation, which is a major factor contributing to high rates of erosion and harmful surface run-off [23]. Regenerative agriculture emphasizes maintaining year-round soil cover. Mulching (e.g., with straw) reduces moisture loss, regulates soil temperature, protects soil structure, and improves drought resilience [22]. Retaining straw and introducing winter cover crops supply soil with biomass, increasing soil organic carbon and building organic matter [24,25]. Living cover crops protect water resources by capturing soil nutrients (e.g., nitrogen) and reducing their leaching into groundwater during autumn and winter [25,26]. Year-round soil cover (including living mulch and catch crops) suppresses weeds through competition for light, space, and resources, reducing the need for herbicides [26]. Our comparison of the declared popularity of maintaining year-round plant cover on fields between the studied countries showed that the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.124), although Belarus showed slightly higher median values. These results suggest that it is a relatively common soil-protection practice, regardless of country-specific farm characteristics.
Another regenerative practice highlighted by specialists is the sowing of cover or catch crops after the main harvest (e.g., introducing mustard or phacelia directly after harvesting maize). Cover crops enhance regenerative systems by increasing soil carbon, supporting biodiversity, reducing erosion, and improving nutrient availability [27]. Some cover crops can also remediate soil pollution, with species such as Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) helping to remove contaminants and degrade harmful compounds [26]. The results of this study show that Belarusian farmers used catch crops significantly more frequently than Polish farmers (p = 0.012). However, subgroup analysis indicated that this effect was confounded and was no longer detectable across many specific sub-populations.
Continuous living roots support soil regeneration by stimulating microbial activity and natural nutrient cycling [19]. Incorporating perennial forages and cover crops into crop rotations increases soil organic carbon and nitrogen sequestration, improving fertility and system resilience to climate stresses. Perennial integration can increase soil carbon by approximately 0.136–0.19 Mg C/ha/year [24]. Deep-rooting perennial grasses and winter cover crops protect soil from erosion and reduce nutrient losses by limiting nitrate leaching into groundwater [26,28]. In this study, the use of perennial or winter cover ensuring living roots throughout the year differed significantly between countries (p = 0.004), with Belarus scoring higher than Germany. This result was not confounded by differences in agricultural education; however, for other demographic variables, significance was lost in several stratified comparisons.
Integrating livestock into cropping systems enhances ecosystem services by closing nutrient cycles and improving soil fertility and system self-sufficiency [29]. Through grazing, trampling, and manure deposition, animals contribute to nutrient availability and stimulate overall soil productivity [20]. Furthermore, turning animals out onto fields after harvest enables the immediate and useful management of agricultural “waste”. An illustrative example is pigs grazed on fields, where they consume crop residues that do not meet market standards and are unsuitable for human consumption, thereby closing material loops on the farm without wasting produced biomass [29]. In this study, significant differences were observed for this practice, with Poland scoring the lowest compared with the other countries (p < 0.001). A particularly sharp contrast emerged between Germany (Mdn = 3, Q1–Q3 = 1–4) and Poland (Mdn = 1, Q1–Q3 = 1–2.75), despite the fact that the two countries did not differ substantially in the proportion of respondents maintaining livestock. Education did not significantly affect the results. Among the remaining variables, these differences stayed significant for male farmers, farmers unfamiliar with regenerative agriculture, and farmers from conventional farms.
Grazing systems managed according to regenerative principles generally involve concentrated stocking for brief periods, regular herd movement between paddocks, and sufficiently long rest phases for pasture recovery. These features distinguish them from continuous grazing, a system that has become more common in developed countries [24]. Such rotational management can increase grass biomass production and contribute to carbon storage in rangelands [29]. This is particularly important in degraded grassland areas, where rational grazing management can help preserve soil nutrients and enhance plant productivity [20]. In this comparison, implementation of rotational grazing differed significantly between Belarus and Poland (p = 0.042), with Belarus showing higher implementation levels. Notably, although Poland had the highest share of livestock and mixed farms, this did not translate into field integration, as conventional livestock farming rarely involves active grazing or field-based nutrient management. By contrast, the high integration scores in Belarus and Germany, despite the lower overall prevalence of livestock production, are particularly noteworthy. The significance of the effect persisted among male farmers, those without agricultural education, and conventional farms. Furthermore, the cross-country difference remained significant regardless of whether farmers were familiar or unfamiliar with regenerative agriculture.
For the purposes of this investigation, the term agroforestry refers to the intentional establishment of tree- and shrub-based vegetation alongside arable or livestock enterprises, with the goal of harnessing the resultant environmental and economic synergies [30]. Available evidence shows that agroforestry boosts soil organic carbon by 40% in the top 0.3 m and by 34% down to 1.0 m [24]. These practices also provide ecosystem services such as water purification, pest control, microclimate stabilisation, soil quality improvement, and erosion control [31]. In the context of our results, Belarus reported significantly higher agroforestry implementation than both Germany and Poland (p < 0.05). Although a significant overall effect was observed, subgroup analyses revealed that this relationship was sensitive to demographic stratification. Notably, there was no single demographic variable for which statistical significance was consistently maintained across both sub-populations.
A further key intervention commonly linked to regenerative agriculture involves designing the farm’s spatial configuration to optimize the exploitation of naturally occurring biophysical processes such as capturing precipitation and recycling organic matter through composting. At its core, regenerative farming seeks to enhance soil health, foster greater biological diversity, and reinforce the long-term adaptive capacity of the landscape, all by aligning cultivation and livestock operations with the underlying ecological dynamics of the surrounding environment [32]. By following the laws of nature and enhancing natural ecological processes, this approach sustainably increases productivity, improves food security, and restores degraded agricultural land [33]. By promoting semi-closed loop systems and resource recycling, regenerative agriculture reduces reliance on external inputs and can generate benefits for both producers and consumers [34]. Within the sampled group of farmers, this practice showed one of the strongest differences between countries, with Belarus clearly exceeding both Germany and Poland. The fact that significant differences remained across almost all subgroup analyses indicates that reliance on natural ecosystem processes represents a broader systemic characteristic of Belarusian agriculture rather than merely an effect of farmer demographics or education level.
The intensification of farming operations has yielded cropping landscapes in which single-species stands prevail, and where productivity is largely contingent upon synthetic chemical supplements and recurring mechanical soil disruption [25]. Intensive chemical-based management has contributed to biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds, posing risks to agricultural sustainability [35]. By contrast, regenerative agriculture prioritises animal manure over synthetic fertilisers and natural pest control over chemical inputs [36]. In our results, Belarusian farmers reported a significantly greater reduction in synthetic inputs than Polish respondents (p = 0.044). However, subgroup analysis showed that this significance was strongly affected by demographic variables. Significance persisted only among male respondents and conventional farms.
The use of natural and organic fertilisers and biological plant protection methods is strongly associated with the previously described practice of minimising synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, since farmers cannot realistically reduce chemical use without turning to organic and biological substitutes. This shift contributes to the restoration of soil fertility because it is based on establishing a production pattern in which native biotic communities coexist in balance, effectively preventing pest outbreaks without disrupting the ecosystem [21]. Biocontrol agents—such as naturally occurring and widespread organisms including viruses, bacteria, fungi, insects, mites, nematodes, yeasts, and protozoa—are central to this strategy [37]. Furthermore, a range of bioactive molecules have been identified for use as biopesticides. These belong to the phenolic, terpenoid, and alkaloid categories and include compounds such as chitin, laminarin, allicin, terpenes, chitosan, naringin, and carrageenans [38]. The application of organic matter from crop residues, cover crops, and manure supports soil microbial diversity, increases soil organic carbon, improves soil structure, water retention, and nutrient availability [19,25]. Moreover, analyses indicate that soils fertilised with manure store, on average, 9.4 Mg C/ha more organic carbon than control plots and sequester it at a significantly faster rate (0.82 Mg C/ha/year) than soils receiving synthetic inorganic fertilisers [24]. In this study, the use of natural pest control methods varied significantly across countries (p < 0.001). Farmers in Belarus (Mdn = 3, Q1–Q3 = 2–4) and Germany (Mdn = 3, Q1–Q3 = 2–4) reported moderate, identical implementation levels, whereas Polish respondents recorded significantly lower adoption (Mdn = 2, Q1–Q3 = 1–2.75). No significant cross-country differences were found among female respondents, farmers familiar with regenerative agriculture, or unconventional farmers, suggesting that these groups demonstrate comparable levels of engagement with natural pest control practices. Regarding natural and organic fertilisation, although statistically significant differences were identified overall (p = 0.043), with Germany exhibiting the lowest values, subgroup analysis revealed significance only across both farm management systems and among farmers familiar with regenerative agriculture. In all remaining subgroups, the differences between countries were not sustained, suggesting that the effect of country on the adoption of this practice was limited and difficult to interpret as a consistent or meaningful pattern.
Agronomists interested in regenerative farm management systems emphasise the application of organic fertilisers in smaller but more frequent doses (e.g., 20 t/ha of manure every 2 years instead of 40 t/ha every 4 years). Regular, smaller applications of organic fertilizers, such as manure, are more effective for maintaining nutrient availability and closing nutrient loops than occasional large applications [39]. Smaller and more frequent organic fertilizer applications enhance soil microbial activity, minimize environmental disturbances, and reduce the risk of short-term N2O emission peaks [28]. In our results, no statistically significant differences were identified in the application of smaller but more frequent doses of organic fertilisers (p = 0.704). Similar median values (2.5–3) across all countries suggest that this practice does not appear to depend on country of origin.
Minimal soil disturbance, including shallow loosening and direct drilling, is a key regenerative practice that preserves soil structure, reduces carbon losses, erosion, and runoff, and supports overall soil health [23]. Abandoning mechanical inversion of soil layers protects sensitive habitats for soil organisms. As a result, earthworm populations, which naturally act as aerators and nutrient distributors, can increase to levels comparable to those observed in undisturbed field margins [25,36]. In our study, observed cross-country differences did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.077), which is consistent with the broader international context. Previous research indicates that, although individual countries differ in terms of historical, structural, and socio-economic conditions influencing adoption, reduced soil disturbance practices have followed relatively similar development patterns across European regions. Regardless of geographical location, farmers increasingly recognise reduced tillage as a valuable approach for limiting soil degradation and supporting long-term soil protection, although its implementation remains influenced by local conditions and practical constraints [40].
Soil pH constitutes a principal diagnostic metric for assessing general edaphic condition, as it is strongly associated with the accumulation of organic residues, the enhanced bioavailability of essential mineral elements, and the proliferation of favourable soil biota. Maintaining pH within an optimal range is essential because, in organic and regenerative systems, natural soil fertility and resilience play a significant role in optimising biogeochemical cycles and sustaining strong symbiotic relationships between the soil environment and plant root systems. With appropriate pH, plants are optimally nourished, which directly translates into increased natural resistance to disease and stress [36]. As the literature emphasises, a fundamental principle of organic agriculture is to grow strong, healthy plants in a balanced agricultural environment, thereby preventing pest pressure without the need for external interventions [21]. In this comparison, no significant differences were found regarding soil pH monitoring (p = 0.755). Across all studied countries, the frequency of this practice fell within a moderate range (Mdn = 3), corresponding to the “sometimes” option on the survey scale. The result is broadly in line with common advisory recommendations, which generally recommend testing agricultural soils every 3–5 years, although the exact interval depends on soil characteristics and farming practices.
Systematic monitoring of biological indicators is crucial for assessing the true health and functioning of the agroecosystem. Publications emphasise that although biological tests, such as measurements of microbial biomass, soil respiration, or nitrogen mineralisation, currently account for less than 20% of routinely used indicators, expanding knowledge of them is fundamental to understanding the soil’s ability to support crop production and maintain proper nutrient cycling [23]. Modern regenerative systems increasingly rely on monitoring soil biological activity through indicators such as earthworm abundance and soil microbial activity. Standardised earthworm counts provide insights into soil structure recovery and biological functioning, while the tea bag test offers a simple approach for assessing organic matter decomposition and microbial activity, both of which are closely linked to nutrient cycling and soil health [25]. The results obtained in this study show that monitoring biological soil activity differed significantly between countries (p < 0.001), with Belarus reporting substantially higher values than Germany and Poland, where the middle half of respondents implemented this practice only between ‘never’ and ‘sometimes’ (Q1–Q3 = 1–3). This effect persisted across many subgroup comparisons.
4.3. Limitations
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study. First, although the comparative design included respondents from three countries, the sample size of fifty farmers per country was relatively small and may not fully capture the diversity of agricultural systems, production structures, and farmer populations within each national context.
Second, a substantial proportion of participants were recruited through online channels, including social media groups and digital networks, which may have led to the overrepresentation of more active, engaged, or innovation-oriented farmers.
Third, the study relied on self-reported declarations rather than independent on-farm observations or audits. Consequently, the reported frequency of regenerative practices may differ from actual implementation levels because of recall bias, social desirability bias, or differences in how respondents interpreted particular practices.
Fourth, the cross-sectional nature of the survey precludes conclusions about causal relationships between farmer characteristics and the adoption of regenerative practices. The statistical analyses were exploratory and comparative, identifying associations and patterns rather than causal mechanisms.
Finally, some observed differences may reflect broader institutional, economic, or cultural factors that were not directly measured in the questionnaire. Future research would benefit from larger and more representative samples, longitudinal designs, and the incorporation of field-based assessments to validate self-reported management practices.
5. Conclusions
This study aimed to compare the self-reported prevalence of selected regenerative agriculture practices among farmers in Poland, Germany, and Belarus, while providing additional insights into respondents’ sources of knowledge, motivations, perceived limitations, and informational preferences. When interpreting these findings, it should be emphasized that the empirical data primarily reflect differences in the self-reported prevalence of practices rather than their objectively verified implementation under field conditions. Overall, the findings largely support the three research expectations formulated at the outset of the study.
The results support the expectation that significant cross-country differences exist in the self-reported adoption of regenerative agriculture, while also showing that relatively simple agronomic methods were implemented more widely than complex, system-oriented regenerative approaches. While some of the studied regenerative practices exhibit a relatively universal level of adoption regardless of national contexts, significant cross-country differences emerge in the implementation of more innovative and holistic agronomic methods that go beyond standard farming routines.
Belarusian farmers reported the highest prevalence across several key system-oriented practices, including polycultures, agroforestry, soil biology monitoring, and livestock integration, whereas Polish respondents generally reported the lowest prevalence, particularly regarding livestock integration, agroforestry, and biological pest management. German farmers mostly occupied an intermediate position.
The findings also support the expectation that many of the observed cross-country differences remained robust after accounting for important socio-demographic and structural characteristics, including gender, agricultural education, familiarity with the concept of regenerative agriculture, and farm management system. Although these characteristics influenced significance of differences in the reported prevalence of some practices. Moreover, the subgroup analyses offered additional insight into the characteristics of the observed differences. The largest number of statistically significant differences between countries was found among farmers managing conventional farms (10 significant practices), followed by male farmers and respondents unfamiliar with the concept of regenerative agriculture (9 practices each). By contrast, the smallest number of significant differences was observed among female farmers and farmers using alternative management systems (e.g., organic, biodynamic, regenerative, or integrated farming), among whom only three practices differed significantly between countries. These results are consistent with the expectation that cross-country variation would be less pronounced among environmentally oriented farmers.
Despite the study’s limitations, these findings highlight the importance of considering both farm-level characteristics and country-level institutional conditions when promoting regenerative agriculture. Advisory and policy strategies should therefore be tailored to country-specific knowledge channels and combine financial support with practical guidance on machinery access, soil biological monitoring, and integrated crop–livestock systems. The findings also provide an empirical basis for future research based on larger, more representative samples that would allow a more comprehensive assessment of regenerative agriculture adoption across Central and Eastern Europe.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su18157973/s1, Table S1: Original data.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, J.G.; methodology, J.G.; software, J.G.; validation, J.G., M.W.; formal analysis, J.G.; investigation, J.P.-W. and J.G.; resources, M.W.; data curation, J.G.; writing—original draft preparation, J.G. and T.B.; writing—review and editing, M.W.; visualization, J.G.; supervision, M.W.; project administration, J.G. and M.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study by Institution Committee due to Legal Regulations (According to Polish national legislation, specifically the Act of 5 December 1996 on the Professions of Physician and Dentist (Ustawa z dnia 5 grudnia 1996 r. o zawodach lekarza i lekarza dentysty), ethical approval from a Bioethics Committee is mandatory only for studies classified as “medical experiments” (Article 21 and Article 29). As this research consisted of a non-interventional, anonymous survey concerning regenerative agriculture practices, and did not involve clinical, medical, or biological interventions on humans, it does not constitute a medical experiment under Polish law and is explicitly exempt from the requirement for bioethical committee approval. Per the guidelines issued by the National Science Centre Poland (NCN): https://www.ncn.gov.pl/sites/default/files/pliki/regulaminy/2021_12_wytyczne_dla_wnioskodawcow_kwestie_etyczne_ang.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2026), this research also meets the criteria for an ethics exemption and does not require formal institutional ethical review).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author(s).
Acknowledgments
The authors want to thank all the respondents from Poland, Germany, and Belarus who voluntarily took part in the survey. Their commitment to sharing their on-farm experiences and perceptions made this comparative study possible.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Jordon, M.W.; Willis, K.J.; Bürkner, P.C.; Haddaway, N.R.; Smith, P.; Petrokofsky, G. Temperate Regenerative Agriculture practices increase soil carbon but not crop yield—A meta-analysis. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17, 093001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lal, R. Regenerative agriculture for food and climate. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2020, 75, 123A–124A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.F. From Sustainable Agriculture to Sustainable Agrifood Systems: A Comparative Review of Alternative Models. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schreefel, L.; Schulte, R.P.; 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] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- LaCanne, C.E.; Lundgren, J.G. Regenerative agriculture: Merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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]
- Bilibio, C.; Weber, T.K.D.; Hammer-Weis, M.; Junge, S.M.; Leisch-Waskoenig, S.; Wack, J.; Niether, W.; Gattinger, A.; Finckh, M.R.; Peth, S. Changes in soil mechanical and hydraulic properties through regenerative cultivation measures in long-term and farm experiments in Germany. Soil Tillage Res. 2025, 246, 106345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cagliero, R.; Licciardo, F.; Legnini, M. The evaluation framework in the new CAP 2023–2027: A reflection in the light of lessons learned from rural development. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siemiątkowski, P. Sytuacja Gospodarcza Polski i Wybranych Krajów Europy Środkowowschodniej Dwie Dekady po Przełomie Transformacyjnym. Toruń. Stud. Międzynar. 2012, 1, 15–28. Available online: https://apcz.umk.pl/TSM/article/view/TIS.2012.005/3541 (accessed on 1 June 2026).
- Eurostat. Farms and farmland in the European Union—Statistics Statistics Explained. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/SEPDF/cache/73319.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2026).
- Herman, E. Changes and challenges in EU agricultural holdings and their impact on rural development. Land 2025, 14, 1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papko, A. The Quiet Privatisation of Agriculture in Belarus. Undermining the State Control. Wars. Forum Econ. Sociol. 2025, 16, 31. [Google Scholar]
- Farm to Fork Strategy. For a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System. Available online: https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-05/f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2026).
- Dessart, F.J.; Barreiro-Hurlé, J.; Van Bavel, R. Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: A policy-oriented review. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2019, 46, 417–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prokopy, L.S.; Floress, K.; Arbuckle, J.G.; Church, S.P.; Eanes, F.R.; Gao, Y.; Gramig, B.; Ranjan, P.; Singh, A. Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2019, 74, 520–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grüne Brücken. Available online: https://diezukunftsbauern.de/regenerative-landwirtschaft/gruene-bruecken/ (accessed on 19 June 2026).
- Kathage, J.; Smit, B.; Janssens, B.; Haagsma, W.; Adrados, J.L. How much is policy driving the adoption of cover crops? Evidence from four EU regions. Land Use Policy 2022, 116, 106016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Panda, N.; Mohapatra, K.K.; Mohanty, S.; Padhan, K.; Sahoo, S.K.; Dash, P.K.; Sethi, D.; Mishra, A.K. Soil Health: Concepts, Principles and Road Maps for Management in Regenerative Agriculture. J. Mod. Agric. Biotechnol. 2024, 3, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, F.; Dong, S.; Yang, J.; Hao, X.; Ma, C.; Shen, H.; Xiao, J.; Li, Y.; Zhang, R.; Shi, H.; et al. Rotational grazing can enhance the soil available nutrients rather than plant diversity to promote ANPP of alpine steppe. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2025, 387, 109617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulut, S.; Arslan, M. Plant Protection Methods in Organic Farming. Curr. Trends Nat. Sci. 2023, 12, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nivedha, S.; Marichamy, M.S.; Kanthaswamy, V. Natural Farming: Embracing Regenerative Agriculture for Sustainable Crop Production. J. Exp. Agric. Int. 2024, 46, 855–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handayani, I.P.; Hale, C. Healthy Soils for Productivity and Sustainable Development in Agriculture. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1018, 012038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rehberger, E.; West, P.C.; Spillane, C.; McKeown, P.C. What climate and environmental benefits of regenerative agriculture practices? an evidence review. Environ. Res. Commun. 2023, 5, 052001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawes, C.; Christie, A.; Banks, G.; Boldrin, D.; Brandt, J.; Iannetta, P.; Swyst, I.; Turner, I. Long-term regenerative practices enhance in-field biodiversity and soil health for sustainable crop yields. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2025, 9, 1651686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, P.; Reitz, T.; Singh, S.P.; Worrich, A.; Muehe, E.M. Going beyond improving soil health: Cover plants as contaminant removers in agriculture. Trends Plant Sci. 2025, 30, 539–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wilson, K.R.; Myers, R.L.; Hendrickson, M.K.; Heaton, E.A. Different Stakeholders’ Conceptualizations and Perspectives of Regenerative Agriculture Reveals More Consensus Than Discord. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Puech, T.; Stark, F. Diversification of an integrated crop-livestock system: Agroecological and food production assessment at farm scale. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 344, 108300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pantera, A.; Mosquera-Losada, M.R.; Herzog, F.; den Herder, M. Agroforestry and the environment. Agroforest. Syst. 2021, 95, 767–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le, T.H.; Bonari, G.; Sauerwein, M.; Plieninger, T.; Zerbe, S. Traditional agroforestry systems in Europe revisited: A systematic review. Agroforest. Syst. 2025, 99, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, K.; Schirmer, J.; Upton, P. Can regenerative agriculture support successful adaptation to climate change and improved landscape health through building farmer self-efficacy and wellbeing? Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2022, 4, 100170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keshavarz, M.; Sharafi, H. Scaling up climate-smart regenerative agriculture for the restoration of degraded agroecosystems in developing countries. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 38, 159–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smithwick, E.A.H.; Baka, J.; Bird, D.; Blaszczak-Boxe, C.; Cole, C.A.; Fuentes, J.D.; Gergel, S.E.; Glenna, L.L.; Grady, C.; Hunt, C.A.; et al. Regenerative landscape design: An integrative framework to enhance sustainability planning. Ecol. Soc. 2023, 28, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, L.; DiTommaso, A.; Kao-Kniffin, J. Opportunities for Microbiome Suppression of Weeds Using Regenerative Agricultural Technologies. Front. Soil Sci. 2022, 2, 838595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayasinghe, S.L.; Thomas, D.T.; Anderson, J.P.; Chen, C.; Macdonald, B.C.T. Global Application of Regenerative Agriculture: A Review of Definitions and Assessment Approaches. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galli, M.; Feldmann, F.; Vogler, U.K.; Kogel, K.H. Can biocontrol be the game-changer in integrated pest management? A review of definitions, methods and strategies. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2024, 131, 265–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandit, M.A.; Kumar, J.; Gulati, S.; Bhandari, N.; Mehta, P.; Katyal, R.; Rawat, C.D.; Mishra, V.; Kaur, J. Major Biological Control Strategies for Plant Pathogens. Pathogens 2022, 11, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Franzluebbers, A.J.; Hendrickson, J.R. Should we consider integrated crop–livestock systems for ecosystem services, carbon sequestration, and agricultural resilience to climate change? Agron. J. 2024, 116, 2111–2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jug, D.; Jug, I.; Brozovi’c, B.; Šeremeši’c, S.; Dolijanovi’c, 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]
Figure 1.
Main sources of knowledge about regenerative agriculture by country (in %).
Figure 2.
Motivations for adopting regenerative practices by country (in %).
Figure 3.
Concerns about adopting regenerative practices by country (in %).
Figure 4.
Preferred methods of obtaining further information about regenerative agriculture by country (in %).
Figure 4.
Preferred methods of obtaining further information about regenerative agriculture by country (in %).
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of respondents and farm profiles by country.
| Variable | Belarus (N = 50) | Germany (N = 50) | Poland (N = 50) | Sum (N = 150) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||
| Female | 28 (56.0%) | 16 (32.0%) | 17 (34.0%) | 61 (40.7%) |
| Male | 22 (44.0%) | 33 (66.0%) | 31 (62.0%) | 86 (57.3%) |
| Prefer not to say | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | 2 (4.0%) | 3 (2.0%) |
| Experience in agriculture (years) | ||||
| 0–5 | 22 (44.0%) | 11 (22.0%) | 12 (24.0%) | 45 (30.0%) |
| 6–10 | 14 (28.0%) | 12 (24.0%) | 9 (18.0%) | 35 (23.3%) |
| 11–20 | 7 (14.0%) | 14 (28.0%) | 13 (26.0%) | 34 (22.7%) |
| >20 | 7 (14.0%) | 13 (26.0%) | 16 (32.0%) | 36 (24.0%) |
| Possession of agricultural education | ||||
| Yes | 24 (48.0%) | 36 (72.0%) | 36 (72.0%) | 96 (64.0%) |
| No | 26 (52.0%) | 14 (28.0%) | 14 (28.0%) | 54 (36.0%) |
| Familiarity with the term regenerative agriculture | ||||
| Yes | 30 (60.0%) | 32 (64.0%) | 18 (36.0%) | 80 (53.3%) |
| No | 20 (40.0%) | 18 (36.0%) | 32 (64.0%) | 70 (46.7%) |
| Farm area (ha) | ||||
| <10 | 19 (38.0%) | 10 (20.0%) | 12 (24.0%) | 41 (27.3%) |
| 10–50 | 19 (38.0%) | 16 (32.0%) | 25 (50.0%) | 60 (40.0%) |
| 51–100 | 6 (12.0%) | 13 (26.0%) | 9 (18.0%) | 28 (18.7%) |
| >100 | 6 (12.0%) | 11 (22.0%) | 4 (8.0%) | 21 (14.0%) |
| Type of production | ||||
| Crop | 27 (54.0%) | 21 (42.0%) | 23 (46.0%) | 71 (47.3%) |
| Livestock | 6 (12.0%) | 6 (12.0%) | 3 (6.0%) | 15 (10.0%) |
| Mixed | 16 (32.0%) | 22 (44.0%) | 24 (48.0%) | 62 (41.3%) |
| Other | 1 (2.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (1.3%) |
| Farm management system | ||||
| Conventional | 35 (70.0%) | 24 (48.0%) | 40 (80.0%) | 99 (66.0%) |
| Other (e.g., organic, biodynamic, regenerative, integrated | 15 (30.0%) | 26 (52.0%) | 10 (20.0%) | 51 (34.0%) |
Table 2.
Chi2 and post hoc test results by country.
| Variable | Chi2 Test Results | Standardised Residuals | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chi2 | df | p-Value | Cramér’s V | Germany | Poland | Belarus | ||
| Gender | Male | 6.64 | 2 | 0.036 | 0.21 | 1.54 | 1.04 | −2.56 |
| Female | −1.54 | −1.04 | 2.56 | |||||
| Experience in agriculture (years) | 0–5 | 12.05 | 6 | 0.061 | 0.20 | — | ||
| 6–10 | ||||||||
| 11–20 | ||||||||
| >20 | ||||||||
| Possession of agricultural education | Yes | 8.33 | 2 | 0.015 | 0.24 | 1.44 | 1.44 | −2.89 |
| No | −1.44 | −1.44 | 2.89 | |||||
| Familiarity with the term “regenerative agriculture” | Yes | 9.21 | 2 | 0.010 | 0.25 | 1.85 | −3.01 | 1.16 |
| No | −1.85 | 3.01 | −1.16 | |||||
| Farm area | <10 | 11.73 | 6 | 0.068 | 0.20 | — | ||
| 10–50 | ||||||||
| 51–100 | ||||||||
| >100 | ||||||||
| Type of production | Crop | 4.67 | 6 | 0.587 | 0.12 | — | ||
| Livestock | ||||||||
| Mixed | ||||||||
| Other | ||||||||
| Farm management system | Conventional | 11.94 | 2 | 0.003 | 0.28 | −3.29 | 2.56 | 0.73 |
| Other (e.g., organic, biodynamic, regenerative, integrated) | 3.29 | −2.56 | −0.73 | |||||
Table 3.
Comparison of practice popularity across countries based on point scores.
| Practice No. | Description of the Practice | Mdn (Q1–Q3) | Kruskal–Wallis Test Results | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belarus | Germany | Poland | Chi2 | df | p | ||
| 1 | Concurrent cultivation in different locations | 4 (3–5) | 4 (2–5) | 4 (2.25–5) | 0.01 | 2 | 0.995 |
| 2 | Crop rotation | 4 (3–5) | 4 (3–5) | 4 (4–5) | 1.22 | 2 | 0.543 |
| 3 | Polycultures (mixed crops) | 3 (2–4.75) | 2 (1–3.75) | 2 (1–2) | 21.83 | 2 | <0.001 A |
| 4 | Year-round plant cover | 4 (3–4.75) | 3 (2–4) | 3.5 (3–4) | 4.17 | 2 | 0.124 |
| 5 | Catch crops after main harvest | 4 (3–5) | 4 (3–4) | 3 (2.25–4) | 8.64 | 2 | 0.013 B |
| 6 | Perennial/winter cover with living roots year-round | 4 (3–4) | 3 (2–4) | 3 (2–4) | 10.95 | 2 | 0.004 C |
| 7 | Livestock on fields (during/after crops) | 2.5 (1–4) | 3 (1–4) | 1 (1–2.75) | 15.69 | 2 | <0.001 D |
| 8 | Rotational grazing (frequent moves between paddocks) | 2 (1–4) | 2 (1–3) | 1 (0.25–3.75) | 6.13 | 2 | 0.047 E |
| 9 | Agroforestry (trees/shrubs among crops) | 3 (2–3) | 2 (1–3) | 1 (1–2.75) | 16.95 | 2 | <0.001 F |
| 10 | Farm design using natural processes | 4.5 (3–5) | 3 (1.25–3) | 3 (2–4) | 24.78 | 2 | <0.001 G |
| 11 | Reducing synthetic inputs (e.g., mineral fertilisers, pesticides) | 4 (3–5) | 3.5 (2.25–4) | 3 (2–4) | 6.33 | 2 | 0.042 H |
| 12 | Natural pest control (beneficial insects, biocontrol, traps) | 3 (2–4) | 3 (2–4) | 2 (1–2.75) | 20.02 | 2 | <0.001 I |
| 13 | Organic and natural fertilisers | 4 (3–5) | 3 (2–4.75) | 4 (3–5) | 6.27 | 2 | 0.043 J |
| 14 | Organic fertilisers—smaller doses, higher frequency | 3 (2–4) | 2.5 (2–4.75) | 3 (2–4) | 0.7 | 2 | 0.704 |
| 15 | Minimal soil disturbance (non-inversion tillage) | 3 (2–4) | 3 (2–3.75) | 3 (1–3) | 5.12 | 2 | 0.077 |
| 16 | Regular soil pH monitoring & adjustment (liming) | 3 (2–4) | 3 (2–4) | 3 (3–4) | 0.56 | 2 | 0.755 |
| 17 | Monitoring soil biology (microbes, earthworms) | 3 (2–4) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 17.74 | 2 | <0.001 K |
A Poland and Belarus (p < 0.001), Belarus and Germany (p = 0.023); B Poland and Belarus (p = 0.012); C Belarus and Germany (p = 0.003); D Poland and Belarus (p = 0.001), Germany and Poland (p = 0.003); E Poland and Belarus (p = 0.042); F Poland and Belarus (p < 0.001), Belarus and Germany (p = 0.011); G Poland and Belarus (p = 0.010), Belarus and Germany (p < 0.001); H Poland and Belarus (p = 0.044); I Poland and Belarus (p = 0.001), Germany and Poland (p < 0.001); J statistically significant difference between Poland and Germany (p = 0.007); K statistically significant differences between Belarus and Germany (p = 0.004) and between Belarus and Poland (p < 0.001).
Table 4.
Subgroup comparisons controlling for confounders (Kruskal–Wallis test p-value).
| Practice ID | Sex | Agricultural Education | Familiarity with the Term Regenerative Agriculture | Farm Management System | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | Yes | No | Yes | No | Conventional | Unconventional | |
| 1 | 0.834 | 0.975 | 0.617 | 0.883 | 0.337 | 0.004 | 0.772 | 0.450 |
| 2 | 0.545 | 0.739 | 0.785 | 0.127 | 0.439 | <0.001 | 0.283 | 0.936 |
| 3 | 0.012 | 0.009 | <0.001 | 0.026 | 0.006 | 0.168 | <0.001 | 0.175 |
| 4 | 0.216 | 0.634 | 0.067 | 0.613 | 0.298 | 0.008 | 0.146 | 0.484 |
| 5 | 0.388 | 0.013 | 0.001 | 0.792 | 0.503 | 0.021 | 0.102 | 0.138 |
| 6 | 0.004 | 0.217 | 0.033 | 0.050 | 0.007 | 0.090 | 0.004 | 0.083 |
| 7 | 0.197 | 0.001 | 0.026 | 0.002 | 0.166 | <0.001 | 0.004 | 0.188 |
| 8 | 0.695 | 0.007 | 0.131 | 0.011 | 0.014 | 0.030 | 0.005 | 0.302 |
| 9 | 0.479 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.075 | 0.019 | 0.054 | 0.002 | 0.075 |
| 10 | 0.005 | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.149 | <0.001 | 0.008 | 0.001 | 0.019 |
| 11 | 0.887 | 0.016 | 0.080 | 0.317 | 0.790 | 0.066 | 0.032 | 0.625 |
| 12 | 0.533 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.044 | 0.780 | 0.012 | 0.002 | 0.508 |
| 13 | 0.153 | 0.114 | 0.081 | 0.507 | 0.014 | 0.089 | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| 14 | 0.988 | 0.220 | 0.713 | 0.696 | 0.075 | 0.415 | 0.348 | 0.714 |
| 15 | 0.505 | 0.083 | 0.288 | 0.192 | 0.073 | 0.594 | 0.089 | 0.967 |
| 16 | 0.417 | 0.457 | 0.966 | 0.672 | 0.003 | 0.607 | 0.677 | 0.309 |
| 17 | 0.197 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.089 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.002 | 0.048 |
| Number of statistically significant results | 3 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 3 |
Values are p-values from Kruskal–Wallis tests comparing the three countries within each subgroup. Shaded cells indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).
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. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Weiner, M.; Grochowska, J.; Pruszyńska-Wołowik, J.; Bujalski, T. Regenerative Agriculture Practices in Poland, Germany, and Belarus: A Comparative Assessment of Their Adoption. Sustainability 2026, 18, 7973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18157973
AMA Style
Weiner M, Grochowska J, Pruszyńska-Wołowik J, Bujalski T. Regenerative Agriculture Practices in Poland, Germany, and Belarus: A Comparative Assessment of Their Adoption. Sustainability. 2026; 18(15):7973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18157973
Chicago/Turabian StyleWeiner, Marcin, Julia Grochowska, Joanna Pruszyńska-Wołowik, and Tomasz Bujalski. 2026. "Regenerative Agriculture Practices in Poland, Germany, and Belarus: A Comparative Assessment of Their Adoption" Sustainability 18, no. 15: 7973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18157973
APA StyleWeiner, M., Grochowska, J., Pruszyńska-Wołowik, J., & Bujalski, T. (2026). Regenerative Agriculture Practices in Poland, Germany, and Belarus: A Comparative Assessment of Their Adoption. Sustainability, 18(15), 7973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18157973
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
