When János Kovács, a farmer in the Hungarian Great Plain, makes the switch to regenerative practices, he won't just be changing how he farms — he may also be building a more profitable business. That's one of the findings emerging from a three-year study by Wageningen University & Research, which tracked 40 farms across Germany, France, Hungary, and Poland to understand what regenerative agriculture actually means in practice for European farmers.
The results, published in the Regenomics project final report, challenge the idea of a one-size-fits-all approach. "Regenerative agriculture is widely seen as a promising pathway toward more sustainable farming, but we still lack sufficient insight into the economic and environmental impacts of scaling it up," said project leader Mark Manshanden.
For eight of the participating farms, researchers modeled two scenarios: one with modest, short-term changes, and another with more transformative shifts over a longer horizon. The differences between regions proved striking. Farms in Poland and Hungary — many still using pesticides with high environmental impact — saw dramatic results from relatively modest adjustments. Stopping those pesticides or switching to alternatives, combined with other regenerative measures, produced a substantially lower environmental footprint while actually increasing revenues. "With relatively small changes, these farms achieve a much lower environmental footprint while increasing their revenues at the same time," Manshanden noted.
In Germany and France, the picture was more complicated. The same regenerative practices led to lower crop yields, which in the researchers' models translated to significantly declining revenues — and the environmental gains were comparatively smaller. "In our scenarios, revenues there decline significantly because crop yields are lower, while the environmental benefits are smaller."
But there was a common thread across almost all the farms studied: costs dropped. Using fewer synthetic fertilizers and pesticides saved money. Labor demands during peak periods eased because land was cultivated less intensively, reducing fuel costs and machinery wear. "This reduces fuel and labor costs, and machinery wears out less quickly," Manshanden explained.
The researchers identified two critical boundary conditions that determined whether regenerative practices paid off: access to livestock manure or compost as a substitute for synthetic fertilizers, and sufficient water for the diverse crop rotations that regenerative farming typically requires. "Is livestock manure available, and is there sufficient water? Is it practically feasible to add additional crops to the crop rotation?" Manshanden asked. These questions matter especially as drought conditions worsen across parts of Europe.
The team also flagged market demand as a key variable. When they introduced nitrogen-fixing crops like legumes into farm systems, environmental benefits were clear — but global markets for such crops remain limited. Changing that, Manshanden said, will require actors throughout the supply chain to get involved.
To help farmers navigate these decisions, the Regenomics team developed a model that lets individual farms calculate how specific measures might affect their operations. It's a reminder that the path forward won't look the same everywhere — but for some farmers, it may be more achievable than they think.