Enabling meaningful change at the farm level is a complex, multi-layered challenge.
It means guiding farmers without imposing top-down prescriptions, measuring outcomes without adding to their workload, offering financial incentives without compromising their autonomy, and scaling solutions without falling into the trap of one-size-fits-all models.
Ultimately, engaging farmers in long-term regenerative agriculture programmes is not just a technical task—it’s also a human one.
Join us for a practical, honest conversation with Thomas Goodman, one of our agronomists, and two of Soil Capital’s farmers as they explore:
Don’t miss this opportunity to hear directly from farmers about what it takes to make regenerative agriculture work—what works, what doesn’t, and how to avoid common pitfalls.
We’re proud to host this conversation and share Soil Capital’s experience running one of the most established regenerative agriculture programmes. With four consecutive years of farmer payments now totaling nearly €15 million, Soil Capital’s programme is field-tested and farmer-approved.
The 6 Harvests Webinar Series delves into the critical strategies for scaling regenerative agriculture programmes to meet net-zero goals. Join industry leaders from the AgFood & Beverage sector at the forefront of the Regen Ag transition as they share insights on reducing land-based emissions and enhancing supply chain resilience.
Question 1: Nick, James — would you say that your participation in the Soil Capital programme is helping you take your regenerative practices further, or adopt them faster? If so, how?
James:
I’m still early in the journey, so it’s a bit hard to give as complete an answer as Nick could. But I’m optimistic that it will help us. Honestly, we’ve already taken our regenerative practices quite far, fairly fast. What I think will be especially valuable are the annual strategic meetings — actually sitting down with the data, seeing where we’re at, and identifying areas to improve. That kind of visibility is going to be really useful.
Nick:
A classic example is how we’re approaching artificial fertilizers. With the Soil Capital programme, I’m able to see the direct impact of those inputs on our soil’s carbon footprint. When I’ve used organic manures instead, I’ve clearly seen the emissions benefits — and I’m getting rewarded for that.
It’s made me seriously consider going even further with alternatives like anaerobic digestate in the spring. Even if there weren’t payments involved, reducing or eliminating artificial fertilizers would significantly lower our carbon footprint. The data makes that benefit impossible to ignore.
Question 2: We often hear that farmers are hesitant to transition to regenerative agriculture because of the fear of yield drops during the transition period. How did you, Nick and James, bridge that gap? Does the improved resilience of your crops — especially during droughts — help balance out those concerns?
Nick:
It’s about knowledge. The biggest barrier is what’s between the ears. I completely understand why many farmers are reluctant to take the leap — especially when it comes to practices like direct drilling, which, if done poorly, can really backfire. But the root of it is understanding.
Yes, it takes time. As I’ve said before, we’re on a journey — five, ten, maybe even fifteen years to reach full resilience in our crops. But you have to start somewhere, and making that initial decision to change is the hardest — and most important — step.
James:
I was at the Groundswell regenerative agriculture show recently, and someone made a thought-provoking comment. They said that a few years ago, conventional farming was more profitable — but now, they believed conventional farmers will have to adopt regen ag just to make farming financially viable.
I think there’s truth in that. Personally, I’ve taken a different path — I’m probably the only one in my area doing regen ag — and I don’t really worry about what others think. But I get that for many, it’s a challenge. Farming in the UK has an older demographic, and the older we get, the more comfortable we become in existing systems. Change gets harder.
As for yields: yes, we did see a drop. Our cereal crops now yield about 1.5 tonnes per hectare less than five years ago. But our input costs have dropped dramatically. We aim to grow cereal crops with fixed and variable costs capped at around £600/ha. In contrast, I know farmers in Essex spending £1,500–2,000/ha.
So while yields are lower, our margins are actually better, because our cost base is significantly leaner.
Question 3: Nick and James — if you had started your regenerative journey at the same time as enrolling in the Soil Capital programme (if that had been possible), how different would your perception of risk have been? It seems you were both independently motivated to make the transition, took on the full risk yourselves, and only later sought support and revenue through Soil Capital. Do you think being supported from the start would have made a difference?
James:
From my perspective, I think I would’ve made the transition anyway. I was already pretty committed to changing how we were farming — I just didn’t like the way we were doing things before.
The best way I can explain the change is this: before 2021, we never hosted events, and we didn’t show anyone around the farm. But over the past four years, we’ve had thousands of visitors — from Wildfarmed, from the local community, educational visits, even Farmers Weekly. I’m really proud of what we’re doing now, and I feel much more fulfilled with my life now than I ever did before.
Had I known about the Soil Capital programme earlier, maybe we would’ve had that conversation sooner. But at the time, I wasn’t really aware of the carbon story. It was only a couple of years ago that some farming friends recommended Soil Capital as a way to bring in a bit of extra revenue and support what we were already doing.
Nick:
What I’d say to any farmer starting this journey is: you don’t have to overhaul everything at once. It's not just about switching to direct drilling or going fully no-till from day one.
Start with small, meaningful changes — adjust your rotation, try a few cover crops. These incremental steps can have a huge impact, especially within the Soil Capital programme. Since it benchmarks you from a starting point, any year-on-year improvements get rewarded.
So yes, having that kind of support early on can absolutely help reduce the sense of risk — especially if you know you’ll be compensated for even modest improvements.
Question 4: Nick and James — when you think about diversifying your business model, what opportunities do you see for doing that in partnership with corporations or other businesses?
James:
One example I mentioned earlier is a 20-hectare habitat creation scheme we’ve just signed up for with a company called Environment Bank. We’re taking some fairly marginal land out of production to create a dedicated space for nature — and I’m really excited about that.
On the food production side, I really enjoy working directly with businesses like Hodmedod’s, Wildfarmed, The Bold Bean Co., and even Wooster’s, our local bakery. These kinds of partnerships are not only rewarding but, in my opinion, represent the future of sustainable farming. I’d absolutely be open to exploring more of these collaborative models.
Nick:
I echo James' thoughts completely. I think the regenerative model actually creates more opportunities for meaningful partnerships with companies — especially those looking for more resilient, sustainable supply chains.
Yes, there are challenges like ensuring continuity of supply, but those are solvable. Personally, I’m passionate about food production, and I believe that diversifying within that space is the right path forward.
There are also non-farming diversification routes, like utilizing assets or land for environmental schemes, which are important. But to me, the core should remain sustainable food production — and doing it in a way that invites collaboration and innovation with like-minded businesses.
Question 5: Do you find regenerative agriculture more exciting than conventional farming?
James:
Oh, absolutely — 100%. It’s just so much more rewarding.
One of the team members on our farm is a keen birdwatcher, and he told me that since working here, he’s not only seeing more birds than on any other farm he’s worked on, but also spotting species he’s never seen before.
We’re seeing more hares, more diverse wildlife overall — we’re just creating a space that feels alive and thriving. And we’re doing that while still producing food — and more of it now for direct human consumption, rather than just animal feed.
That shift alone makes it feel far more meaningful. Honestly, I’d never go back to conventional farming. It’s just not an option.
Nick:
I echo exactly what James said. The birdlife on the farm is off the scale right now. We haven’t even done a formal count yet — this is just anecdotal — but we’re noticing species that we’ve never seen before. It’s brilliant, and it adds a whole new layer of satisfaction to the work we do.
Enabling meaningful change at the farm level is a complex, multi-layered challenge.
It means guiding farmers without imposing top-down prescriptions, measuring outcomes without adding to their workload, offering financial incentives without compromising their autonomy, and scaling solutions without falling into the trap of one-size-fits-all models.
Ultimately, engaging farmers in long-term regenerative agriculture programmes is not just a technical task—it’s also a human one.
Join us for a practical, honest conversation with Thomas Goodman, one of our agronomists, and two of Soil Capital’s farmers as they explore:
Don’t miss this opportunity to hear directly from farmers about what it takes to make regenerative agriculture work—what works, what doesn’t, and how to avoid common pitfalls.
We’re proud to host this conversation and share Soil Capital’s experience running one of the most established regenerative agriculture programmes. With four consecutive years of farmer payments now totaling nearly €15 million, Soil Capital’s programme is field-tested and farmer-approved.
The 6 Harvests Webinar Series delves into the critical strategies for scaling regenerative agriculture programmes to meet net-zero goals. Join industry leaders from the AgFood & Beverage sector at the forefront of the Regen Ag transition as they share insights on reducing land-based emissions and enhancing supply chain resilience.
Question 1: Nick, James — would you say that your participation in the Soil Capital programme is helping you take your regenerative practices further, or adopt them faster? If so, how?
James:
I’m still early in the journey, so it’s a bit hard to give as complete an answer as Nick could. But I’m optimistic that it will help us. Honestly, we’ve already taken our regenerative practices quite far, fairly fast. What I think will be especially valuable are the annual strategic meetings — actually sitting down with the data, seeing where we’re at, and identifying areas to improve. That kind of visibility is going to be really useful.
Nick:
A classic example is how we’re approaching artificial fertilizers. With the Soil Capital programme, I’m able to see the direct impact of those inputs on our soil’s carbon footprint. When I’ve used organic manures instead, I’ve clearly seen the emissions benefits — and I’m getting rewarded for that.
It’s made me seriously consider going even further with alternatives like anaerobic digestate in the spring. Even if there weren’t payments involved, reducing or eliminating artificial fertilizers would significantly lower our carbon footprint. The data makes that benefit impossible to ignore.
Question 2: We often hear that farmers are hesitant to transition to regenerative agriculture because of the fear of yield drops during the transition period. How did you, Nick and James, bridge that gap? Does the improved resilience of your crops — especially during droughts — help balance out those concerns?
Nick:
It’s about knowledge. The biggest barrier is what’s between the ears. I completely understand why many farmers are reluctant to take the leap — especially when it comes to practices like direct drilling, which, if done poorly, can really backfire. But the root of it is understanding.
Yes, it takes time. As I’ve said before, we’re on a journey — five, ten, maybe even fifteen years to reach full resilience in our crops. But you have to start somewhere, and making that initial decision to change is the hardest — and most important — step.
James:
I was at the Groundswell regenerative agriculture show recently, and someone made a thought-provoking comment. They said that a few years ago, conventional farming was more profitable — but now, they believed conventional farmers will have to adopt regen ag just to make farming financially viable.
I think there’s truth in that. Personally, I’ve taken a different path — I’m probably the only one in my area doing regen ag — and I don’t really worry about what others think. But I get that for many, it’s a challenge. Farming in the UK has an older demographic, and the older we get, the more comfortable we become in existing systems. Change gets harder.
As for yields: yes, we did see a drop. Our cereal crops now yield about 1.5 tonnes per hectare less than five years ago. But our input costs have dropped dramatically. We aim to grow cereal crops with fixed and variable costs capped at around £600/ha. In contrast, I know farmers in Essex spending £1,500–2,000/ha.
So while yields are lower, our margins are actually better, because our cost base is significantly leaner.
Question 3: Nick and James — if you had started your regenerative journey at the same time as enrolling in the Soil Capital programme (if that had been possible), how different would your perception of risk have been? It seems you were both independently motivated to make the transition, took on the full risk yourselves, and only later sought support and revenue through Soil Capital. Do you think being supported from the start would have made a difference?
James:
From my perspective, I think I would’ve made the transition anyway. I was already pretty committed to changing how we were farming — I just didn’t like the way we were doing things before.
The best way I can explain the change is this: before 2021, we never hosted events, and we didn’t show anyone around the farm. But over the past four years, we’ve had thousands of visitors — from Wildfarmed, from the local community, educational visits, even Farmers Weekly. I’m really proud of what we’re doing now, and I feel much more fulfilled with my life now than I ever did before.
Had I known about the Soil Capital programme earlier, maybe we would’ve had that conversation sooner. But at the time, I wasn’t really aware of the carbon story. It was only a couple of years ago that some farming friends recommended Soil Capital as a way to bring in a bit of extra revenue and support what we were already doing.
Nick:
What I’d say to any farmer starting this journey is: you don’t have to overhaul everything at once. It's not just about switching to direct drilling or going fully no-till from day one.
Start with small, meaningful changes — adjust your rotation, try a few cover crops. These incremental steps can have a huge impact, especially within the Soil Capital programme. Since it benchmarks you from a starting point, any year-on-year improvements get rewarded.
So yes, having that kind of support early on can absolutely help reduce the sense of risk — especially if you know you’ll be compensated for even modest improvements.
Question 4: Nick and James — when you think about diversifying your business model, what opportunities do you see for doing that in partnership with corporations or other businesses?
James:
One example I mentioned earlier is a 20-hectare habitat creation scheme we’ve just signed up for with a company called Environment Bank. We’re taking some fairly marginal land out of production to create a dedicated space for nature — and I’m really excited about that.
On the food production side, I really enjoy working directly with businesses like Hodmedod’s, Wildfarmed, The Bold Bean Co., and even Wooster’s, our local bakery. These kinds of partnerships are not only rewarding but, in my opinion, represent the future of sustainable farming. I’d absolutely be open to exploring more of these collaborative models.
Nick:
I echo James' thoughts completely. I think the regenerative model actually creates more opportunities for meaningful partnerships with companies — especially those looking for more resilient, sustainable supply chains.
Yes, there are challenges like ensuring continuity of supply, but those are solvable. Personally, I’m passionate about food production, and I believe that diversifying within that space is the right path forward.
There are also non-farming diversification routes, like utilizing assets or land for environmental schemes, which are important. But to me, the core should remain sustainable food production — and doing it in a way that invites collaboration and innovation with like-minded businesses.
Question 5: Do you find regenerative agriculture more exciting than conventional farming?
James:
Oh, absolutely — 100%. It’s just so much more rewarding.
One of the team members on our farm is a keen birdwatcher, and he told me that since working here, he’s not only seeing more birds than on any other farm he’s worked on, but also spotting species he’s never seen before.
We’re seeing more hares, more diverse wildlife overall — we’re just creating a space that feels alive and thriving. And we’re doing that while still producing food — and more of it now for direct human consumption, rather than just animal feed.
That shift alone makes it feel far more meaningful. Honestly, I’d never go back to conventional farming. It’s just not an option.
Nick:
I echo exactly what James said. The birdlife on the farm is off the scale right now. We haven’t even done a formal count yet — this is just anecdotal — but we’re noticing species that we’ve never seen before. It’s brilliant, and it adds a whole new layer of satisfaction to the work we do.
