It is no longer up to regenerative agriculture to prove itself

The goal is not to chase after high yields at any cost, but rather to use cost-effective and reliable technology

Even though the consequences of traditional farming methods are becoming increasingly evident, we still hear suspicious and skeptical objections to the transition to regenerative agriculture. Yields of cereal crops and spring-sown row crops are declining or stagnating, the condition of our topsoil is deteriorating, and we are increasingly unable to cope with extreme temperature and precipitation conditions. In contrast, regenerative technology offers lower costs and greater security, so it is precisely the legitimacy of traditional methods that has come into question. Interview Attila Szabówell, the Soil Renewal Farmers Association with the president of (TMG).

The subsidy system has made farmers complacent

– For a long time, no-till or reduced-till farming was the exception rather than the rule in Hungarian agriculture. When did this begin to change in a meaningful way?

– Until the 2010s, it was indeed uncommon in Hungary for farms to consider no-till farming as a systematic, day-to-day practice. There were some pioneers, a few lectures and conferences, and a handful of more open-minded farmers, but this did not yet represent a widespread shift in mindset. In my opinion, the real turning point began in the early 2020s, and extreme weather events played a very significant role in this. The drought of 2022, followed by the dust storm of 2023, was a sobering experience for many farmers. It suddenly became very clear that something was wrong with our soils, water retention, erosion, and the way we had been farming the land up to that point.

– So it wasn't primarily theoretical insights, but practical setbacks that brought this way of thinking into focus?

– Exactly. It entered the public consciousness informally: through articles, presentations, grant proposals, examples from abroad, and, at the same time, an increasing number of situations where everyone could see with their own eyes that something was wrong. Droughts, dust storms, eroding hillsides, bare hilltops, and patches of waterlogged land all point in the same direction. The no-till, cover-crop, regenerative approach It has attracted the interest of many people because it simultaneously addresses moisture retention, erosion control, and the improvement of soil structure and biological health.

– We often talk about it as if it were a new trend, but it isn't. In the West and overseas, they're way ahead of us.

– That’s right. This didn’t start yesterday. In North and South America, Australia, and now even in Russia and Ukraine, no-till or minimum-till systems are used on much larger areas than in Europe. Hundreds of millions of hectares worldwide are farmed this way. In North America, the share of no-till farming is over 30 percent; in South America and Australia, it’s around 60 percent. Europe has fallen behind in comparison. And it must be said: the subsidy system has also played a major role in this.

– Many people actually think that subsidies help with adaptation. Do you think they’ve actually hindered it?

– The reality is that Europe has largely slept through these past 30–40 years. Not just Hungary, but all of Europe. Where subsidies aren’t available on this scale, farmers have been forced to respond very quickly to their own problems. They had to cut costs, reduce the number of passes, cut back on input use, and make soil cultivation more sustainable. There, the market dictated the terms. Here, however, the subsidy system has often lulled farmers into complacency. The money came in, compensating even for what should have been addressed within the farm itself. This created a very comfortable situation and also delayed a shift in mindset. If you can comfortably sit back and expect to receive a lot of money for your land—even without technological development, modernization, or adaptation to climate change—then you really have no incentive to cut costs or modernize. This is the downside of the subsidy system.

A Crucial Follow-Up Question

– What motivates farmers today? Is it the fear of erosion, water shortages, soil degradation, the cost of nitrogen, or something else?

– Money is still the strongest motivator today. It’s that simple. If a farmer is spending 70,000–80,000 forints per hectare out of his own pocket, that hurts. If some form of subsidy partially covers that cost, he feels less pressure to make changes. But when they see that the price of diesel is rising, seeds are getting more expensive, fertilizers are getting more expensive, and crop protection is getting more expensive—while yields aren’t increasing, and in many places are actually decreasing—then sooner or later they start doing the math. This is precisely one of the keys to regenerative thinking: the goal is not to chase peak yields, but rather to achieve lower-cost, more stable, and more predictable production.

– This is a very important point, because many farmers are afraid that if they switch, their harvest will be smaller.

– I always ask in response: aren’t yields actually falling right now? Due to climate change, even crops grown using traditional methods in Hungary are seeing lower yields. In many parts of eastern Hungary, the corn crop is practically being lost. So let’s not act as if, as if the conventional system were stable, and only the regenerative approach would be risky. Today, it is actually risky not to change. In regenerative farming systems, yields may not always be exceptional, but crop production is much more stable in terms of predictability and average yields. That's worth more and more these days.

– So the question isn't what regenerative farming can do, but rather, how much longer can conventional farming be sustained at all?

– Exactly. I think every farmer should finally ask himself this question. It’s not regenerative systems that need to be put to the test, but conventional farming. How much longer can we keep doing everything the same way we did 20, 30, or 40 years ago, when everything else has changed in the meantime? The weather has changed, costs have changed, soil quality has deteriorated, competition on the global market is different, input prices are different, and the labor situation is different. And yet we’re still forcing the same old systems on ourselves. It’s not going to work this way.

Land is also a public asset—and should be treated as such

– From a soil conservation perspective, what is the biggest problem with crop rotation?

– The fact that it is the most soil-destructive practice. Plowing is difficult to justify from both ecological and economic perspectives. It destroys soil structure, accelerates the loss of organic matter, increases desiccation, exacerbates erosion, and consumes a great deal of fuel. Anyone who farms in hilly terrain and sees their topsoil washed away by water every year should not consider this a natural occurrence. Nor is it normal for the wind to whip up dust storms from the fields. Soil is not merely a medium for production, but a national treasure. If someone manages it irresponsibly, there are consequences—it’s just that we haven’t properly factored those costs in yet.

– So, in your opinion, could soil degradation have legal consequences as well?

– I think it will definitely happen in time. Because it’s absurd that environmental fines can be imposed for so many things, but if someone loses the topsoil over the course of decades, we practically just accept it. Yet we can’t build soil overnight. It takes decades to regenerate, and in the meantime, we lose not only the physical condition of the arable land but also the humus, soil life, and biological activity. It’s a crime to squander this.

– How can a cover crop help with this?

– A great deal. Cover crops are a key component of a regenerative system. On the one hand, they physically protect the soil from the damaging effects of raindrops and wind, thus playing a role in erosion control. On the other hand, it provides shade, reduces evaporation, and acts as both an evaporative and moisture-retaining medium, which can help create small water cycles. This would completely transform the atmospheric water balance if regenerative agriculture were systematically applied to at least 2.5 million hectares. Currently, there are fields cultivated as fallow land, which, when heated, radiate additional heat into their surroundings. In addition, it improves water infiltration and the soil’s moisture-retention capacity. Thirdly, its root system nourishes soil life, improves soil structure, and with certain species, can even have a soil-loosening effect. Cover crops are not a magic bullet, but rather part of a system—and a very powerful tool at that.

– Some farmers, however, still view it as an additional cost and an additional risk.

– Yes, because that’s what you see in the short term: seeds, organization, new knowledge, and new opportunities for mistakes. But on the other hand, there’s less runoff, better soil structure, better water retention, more organic matter, less wind erosion, and in the long run, lower fertilizer and fuel requirements. This must be viewed as part of a system, not as a single line item in the budget. Cover crops work well when they are not planted merely for decoration, but are consciously integrated into the crop rotation and soil management practices.

The key is to minimize soil disturbance and keep the soil covered

– Many farmers already understand the difference between no-till and min-till, but there are still some misunderstandings. How would you briefly explain the difference?

– The key in every case is to reduce soil disturbance. The less we disturb the soil, the more positive processes can take hold: soil structure improves, biological activity increases, and water management functions better. Minimum till means tilling to a maximum depth of 10 centimeters. Strip-till, for example, only disturbs the soil in the planting row. No-till, on the other hand, goes even further: there is virtually no tillage; the seeder works directly into the crop residue or cover crop left on the surface. The system works well only when we change not just a machine, but our entire mindset.

– Are there certain factors that are important almost everywhere, regardless of the landscape or soil type?

– Yes. The first is to reduce soil disturbance. The second is to ensure soil cover. The third is to maintain a living root system for as long as possible—in other words, not to leave the soil bare. The fourth is a varied crop rotation. And it’s also very important to think in terms of a system, not just a single element. Of course, the same technology isn’t suitable everywhere, because light sandy soil is different from compacted clay, but the direction is the same: less tillage, more cover, more biology, and better water management.

– Another common argument is that farmers aren’t interested in long-term soil improvement on leased land. Is this a real problem?

– It’s a real issue, but I don’t think that’s the main obstacle. A significant portion of our land is leased as well, yet we still farm it using a regenerative approach. The question isn’t whether the land is owned or leased, but whether the farmer is willing to think differently. Of course, it would be good if the law and the subsidy system better recognized those who improve soil condition and better protected landowners from getting back land that has deteriorated. But the biggest obstacle today is really just habit and a rigid mindset.

Knowledge, Support, Attitude

– So is the mental shift a bigger problem than the technological shift?

– Often, yes. Some farmers still cling to the usual routine, even when it’s clear that it doesn’t work the way it used to. Every year, they hope that the next season will be better, that the old weather will return, and that things will somehow work out. But that’s not going to happen. The climate of 10–15 years ago is gone. And anyone who builds their farm on the assumption that it will return is taking a huge risk.

– It follows, then, that the subsidy system should also change. In what direction?

– Two things are needed at the same time: incentives and requirements. Today, the majority of farmers are motivated primarily by financial incentives. If soil-conserving practices—such as cover crops, erosion control, and reduced crop rotation—were to receive clearly visible additional subsidies, that would make a big difference. But even more important is having a system of requirements. It shouldn’t be the case that it doesn’t matter what anyone does, as long as they somehow meet the minimum requirements. Those who truly work to protect the soil should receive more. Those who damage it should not be rewarded in the same way by the system.

– To what extent are education and the transfer of knowledge key issues?

– Very much so. Without money, the system is hard to get moving, but without knowledge, it moves in the wrong direction. You can’t just have someone buy a direct-seeding machine and expect them to become a no-till farmer overnight. You need to see real-life examples and gain experience tailored to your own soil type and specific circumstances. This is what we at the Soil Regeneration Farmers’ Association strive to help with: through conferences, farmer meetings, practical examples, videos, and knowledge sharing. Anyone who truly wants to learn can find plenty of resources today. We do all of this without subsidies, using our own funding—the membership dues paid by our farmers.

– You’ve been organizing this community since 2015, and the REAG conference grew out of it. What are you most proud of?

– The fact that a professional environment has emerged at all in which regenerative thinking is not viewed as some passing fad, but as a real, practical agronomic solution. Another important achievement was the inclusion of the soil-regenerating approach in the AKG. It’s not perfect, nor is it in its final form, but it has been incorporated into the system, and several billion forints in compensation have become available to those who farm this way. This shows that if we work persistently on a professional level, it can yield results. Together with the ministry, we provided the technical expertise. I feel that we at TMG put a great deal of professional effort and energy into this.

– What is the most important thing to do in general?

– I can only repeat: don’t ask what regenerative farming is capable of, but rather how long the current system can be sustained. The facts show that even under the traditional system, yields are declining, costs are rising, soil quality is deteriorating, and weather patterns are becoming increasingly extreme. The question is no longer whether we need to adapt, but when and at what cost. The later someone makes the switch, the more painful it will be.

– In other words, we’re not talking about an ideological issue, but a matter of survival.

– Yes. Everyone really needs to understand this. It’s not about whether someone likes or dislikes the term “regenerative.” It’s about the fact that conditions in agriculture have changed, and the old solutions no longer work. You can put it off, you can argue about it, you can look to your neighbor, but in the meantime, the soil is deteriorating, water is running out, corn is dropping out of the system in many places, and some farms will no longer be sustainable in the foreseeable future. Soil conservation, cover crops, and reduced- or no-till farming are no longer just unconventional ideas—they are now a necessity for adaptation.

– Do you think the next five years could be decisive in this regard?

– I think so. We’re not talking about some distant issue 10 or 20 years from now. There are already many people dropping out, a lot of uncertainty, and extreme years are coming one after another. Those who start learning, experimenting, and adapting now will have room to maneuver. Those who are still waiting for the old order to return may very easily wake up too late. That’s why I say: regenerative agriculture shouldn’t be glorified, but understood with a clear head. It doesn’t promise miracles, but rather a more stable foundation in an increasingly uncertain agricultural environment.

AUTHOR: ZOLTÁN KOHOUT