Why Shift from Conventional Farming to Conservation Agriculture

Modern farming, driven by the Green Revolution, feeds billions while requiring far fewer workers than a century ago. Initiated in Mexico in the 1950s, this revolution spread globally by the 1960s, introducing high-yield crop varieties, chemical fertilizers, and advanced irrigation techniques. These innovations greatly boosted food production, saving billions from hunger and supporting rapid population growth. However, the same methods that brought this abundance are now degrading ecosystems and threatening the future of food security. Without sustainable solutions like conservation agriculture, future generations may face the consequences of this unsustainable agricultural model.

The Green Revolution’s Unintended Consequences

The Green Revolution, initially hailed as a panacea for agricultural challenges, can be likened to a potent antibiotic designed to combat pests, low soil fertility, and outdated crop varieties. While this “superweapon” initially led to a surge in agricultural productivity, it inadvertently disrupted natural ecosystems, including beneficial organisms

Consequently, the overuse of agrochemicals, particularly pesticides and fertilizers, resulted in runoff contamination of groundwater, rivers, and local ecosystems. Furthermore, toxic substances such as chlordecone and DDT had severe impacts on some farming communities

Perhaps the most alarming outcome has been the dramatic decline in insect biodiversity. A Nature study revealed that insect numbers have plummeted by half in farming regions affected by climate change, with species diversity also decreasing by a third. This is particularly concerning given the crucial role insects like beetles, crickets, and bees play in pollination and natural pest control.

Moreover, pests have developed resistance to herbicides over time, mirroring the way bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics. This growing issue, exemplified by weeds resistant to products like glyphosate, poses a significant threat to food security.

Additionally, poor fertilization practices have exacerbated the problem. Inefficient nutrient management leads to nitrogen loss through leaching and volatilization, polluting water systems and releasing nitrous oxide (NOx), a potent greenhouse gas responsible for 18% of agriculture-related emissions.

In light of these challenges, a shift towards conservation agriculture, which prioritizes soil health, biodiversity, and climate adaptation, offers a sustainable alternative. Without adopting such measures, future generations may face dire consequences resulting from today’s unsustainable farming practices.

Figure 2: The "Windshield phenomenon" is an observation made by automobilists since the 2000s that very few insect now crash on windshields compared to 50 years ago. Since 2017, multiple studies have documented arthropods' decline.

The Soil is the Base: How Conservation Agriculture Builds Resilience

To fix our food systems, we need holistic approaches. Instead of viewing farms as linear chains (soil → fertilizer → crop → machine → harvest), conservation agriculture (CA) treats them as interconnected webs of soil, flora, fauna, humans, and the environment. This mindset aligns with regenerative agriculture principles (Schreefel et al., 2020), but CA stands out for its practical, soil-first focus.

Why Conservation Agriculture?

CA is a proven strategy to combat climate change, restore ecosystems, and promote efficient farming. Its name stems from its core mission: to conserve soil. Healthy soil isn’t just the foundation—it’s the lifeline of sustainable agriculture. Let’s explore its three guiding principles, listed by ease of adoption:

1. Species Diversification: Cultivating Biodiversity

Healthy soil thrives on diversity. By rotating crops (e.g., maize, legumes, wheat) and interplanting species, farmers:

• Boost microbial and faunal activity, enhancing nutrient cycles.
• Improve soil structure, reducing compaction and erosion.
• Deter pests naturally, lowering reliance on chemicals.

But it’s not easy: Optimal rotations depend on climate, soil type, and crop compatibility. Careful planning is essential—because the soil is the base.

2. Permanent Soil Cover: Shielding Against Erosion

Conventional farming leaves fields barren between harvests, exposing soil to rain and wind. The result? Soil erodes 10–100x faster than it forms, washing away nutrients and organic matter. Once lost, topsoil is irreplaceable within human timescales.

CA solves this with permanent soil cover via:

• Cover crops like clover or rye, grown between cash crops.
• Mulch layers from crop residues.

This protective blanket:

• Slows erosion by buffering rainfall.
• Suppresses weeds, reducing herbicide use.
• Retains moisture, crucial for drought resilience.

3. Reduced Tillage (No-Till): Protecting Soil Structure

Tillage—the practice of plowing fields—disrupts soil ecosystems and releases stored carbon. CA minimizes this through no-till farming:

• Direct sowing: Seeds are planted into untilled soil.
• Precision fertilization: Nutrients are applied without disturbance.

Benefits include:

• 20% lower GHG emissions from reduced machinery use (West & Marland, 2002).
• Enhanced carbon sequestration, rebuilding soil organic matter (La Scala et al., 2006).
• Healthier earthworm populations, which improve water infiltration and soil porosity.

The Bigger Picture

By adopting these principles, CA transforms degraded land into resilient ecosystems. It’s not just a farming method—it’s a long-term investment in food security, climate adaptation, and soil health. and, 2002). But it also allows for better carbon sequestration in the long run (La Scala et al., 2006).

Figure 3: Number of publications including “conservation agriculture” in the title published on the Web of Science during the past 11 years. Source: FAA with WoS data

Why is conservation agriculture crucial to feed our grandchildren?

Now, hear me out. Conservation agriculture is not our only tool to build tomorrow’s food systems, but it should be our foundation. Because it’s a stable base to further build on. Because it safeguards our food systems against climate change and soil erosion. Still not convinced?

Here are 4 facts to change your mind.

Biological pacemaker

I told you at the beginning how conventional farming harmed biodiversity. Despite this harm, ecosystems can prove to be surprisingly quick to bounce back when given the chance. In CA, reduced tillage and residue retention increase topsoil organic matter. In other words, more food and shelter for microbial communities. As a result, microbial diversity and biomass increase. Symbiotic fungi are suspected to make the most out of this shift, and they can help plants to gather nutrients and water more efficiently during droughts (N. Verhulst, 2010).

Earthworms also thrive thanks to reduced disturbance and increased organic matter to chew on. They are more diverse and active in fields under CA (Palm et al., 2014). This takes us to advantage number two.

Agricultural drought is not as problematic as it should be

A very funny thing to do when reading scientific papers is finding when the researcher got caught off-guard by their own results. Concerning the resilience of CA to drought, increased density of soil and reduced overall porosity should make this system less efficient at stocking water.

“These changes would be expected to lower water infiltration rates in NT (no-till) compared to CT (conventional tillage); this however has not been shown”

(Palm et al., 2014)

This is explained by better soil stability and interconnection of pores thanks to earthworms. In practice, fields cultivated with CA absorb rainwater better and have higher soil moisture. A meta-analysis found yields on average 7.3% higher than conventional agriculture during droughts (Pittelkow and Al, 2014).

Figure 4: Even heat-tolerant species like sunflower can be impacted in case of extreme drought. Here, in a conventional field.

Your descendants will be able to farm this land too

Every year, 43 billion tons of land are eroded worldwide. A study published by Borrelli and al. in 2020 showed how IPCC climate change scenarii would influence this figure depending on land-use change and agricultural practices. The regions most affected by erosion would be tropical regions, eastern North America and Subsaharan Africa. Erosion caused by water will increase between 30 and 66% in the next 50 years.

This same report recommends that “ the crops under CA would need to increase globally to 60%” to reduce erosion as best as possible. Why is this practice so effective to reduce erosion?

Permanent soil cover plays an important role in protecting the soil against erosion. It essentially acts as a buffer to avoid crusting after heavy rains. The active fungi and bacteria produce organic “glues”, giving the soil a cohesive and stable structure able to withstand rainfall and floods. Finally, the incorporation of organic matter regenerates soil similar to what happens in a natural forest.

At civilization timescales, conservation agriculture “produces erosion rates much closer to soil production rates and therefore could provide a foundation for sustainable agriculture” compared to plow-based agriculture

(Montgomery, 2007)

Figure 5: In the AR6 report, the IPCC showcased how soil erosion would evolve depending on different global warming scenarii. RCP 2.6 is the optimistic scenario, whereas RCP 8.5 is a worst-case scenario

More money in your pockets

If you’re still not convinced by conservation agriculture (CA), its financial benefits might just change your mind. Indeed, CA farms frequently outperform conventional ones in profitability, blending yield stability with lower operational costs.

To understand why, let’s break it down: A meta-analysis of 193 studies found that both absolute and relative yield stability in no-till systems match conventional farming—except in cold humid climates, where no-till lags temporarily. But here’s the kicker: CA’s true advantage lies in slashing production costs. By eliminating tillage, farmers cut fuel use, labor hours, and machinery maintenance. For example, in U.S. sugarcane systems, avoiding just one tillage operation saves $16.28 per hectare (Judice et al., 2006).

What’s more, profitability isn’t limited to specific regions. Across diverse socioeconomic contexts, from smallholder farms in Africa to large-scale operations in the Americas—CA consistently boosts net income. Take Syngenta’s Conservation Agriculture initiative, which reported an 18% increase in growers’ profits through optimized crop establishment.

But the benefits don’t stop there. Over time, CA’s economic edge grows. Consider this: A long-term study on maize farming in Southern Africa found that CA practices (like crop rotation and high-input use) raised yields by 30–50% in low-rainfall areas, proving its resilience in harsh climates.

But Why Isn’t Conservation Agriculture Widely Adopted?

Despite its proven benefits, conservation agriculture (CA) covers just 9% of global arable land, with most adoption in the Americas. Let’s unpack the barriers slowing its global uptake:

1. Financial and Technical Barriers

• High Upfront Costs: No-till machinery and direct seeding equipment require significant investment, deterring smallholders.
• Site-Specific Knowledge: Practices thriving in Brazil’s Cerrado may fail in India’s Punjab due to differing climates, soils, and crops.

2. Competing Resource Demands

• Crop Residue Conflicts: Mulch materials like straw or stalks are often diverted for fodder, fuel, or construction in smallholder systems.

3. Policy and Regional Hurdles

• Lack of Government Support: Europe and developing nations lag in CA-friendly policies or subsidies.
• Regional Disparities:
  • Americas: Lead adoption due to research and machinery access.
  • Africa/Asia: Reliance on low-cost alternatives (e.g., animal-drawn tools) slows scalability (Erenstein et al., 2012).

4. Transition Challenges

Adopting CA isn’t instant. Farmers need 3–5 years to master site-specific techniques, during which yields may fluctuate.

The Path Forward for Conservation Agriculture

Despite these challenges, CA adoption is rising steadily since the 1990s. Here’s why optimism is warranted:

Policy Momentum: Governments increasingly recognize CA’s role in meeting climate goals.

Profitability Wins: Farmers report 18% higher net profits (Syngenta Initiative) and long-term soil health gains.

Climate Pressures: Droughts and erratic rainfall make CA’s resilience indispensable.

Table 1: Global area distribution of CA by continent; Source : (Kassam and al, 2014)

CA as the Future of Farming

1. Overcoming Challenges in Traditional Systems

In traditional smallholder subtropical farming, competing demands for resources—like using crop residues for fodder, fuel, or construction—often clash with CA’s requirement for permanent soil cover. This tension highlights the need for context-specific solutions tailored to local needs.

2. Rising Recognition and Adoption

Despite these hurdles, conservation agriculture is now widely acknowledged as:

• Productive: Matching or exceeding conventional yields in most climates.
• Economically Viable: Cutting costs by $16.28/ha (Judice et al., 2006).
• Ecologically Sustainable: Slashing erosion by 66% in vulnerable regions (Borrelli et al., 2020).

Since the 1990s, CA adoption has grown steadily, with global acreage expanding yearly. Farmers from Zambia to India are proving its scalability.

3. The Road Ahead: Policy, Climate, and Innovation

Three drivers will cement CA as the backbone of food systems:

• Climate Pressure: Droughts and erratic rainfall make CA’s drought resilience indispensable.
• Policy Shifts: Governments must incentivize CA through subsidies, training, and research funding.
• Affordable Tools: Low-cost alternatives to machinery (e.g., animal-drawn seeders) are bridging gaps for smallholders.

A Legacy of Resilient Land

With smarter policies and urgent climate action, CA can ensure our grandchildren inherit fertile, productive soils—not dust bowls. The future of farming isn’t just sustainable; it’s regenerative.

Sources

IPCC Reports

• [1] IPCC, “Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896
• [2] IPCC, “Special Report on Climate Change and Land.” Accessed: Jun. 29, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/

Studies on Pesticides and Toxicity

• [3] “Chlordécone : l’Etat jugé coupable de ‘négligences fautives,’” Franceinfo, Jun. 27, 2022. https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/environnement/pesticides/chlordecone-l-etat-juge-coupable-de-negligences-fautives_5224168.html (accessed Jun. 29, 2022).

Conservation Agriculture and Income Studies

• [4] J. A. Tambo and J. Mockshell, “Differential Impacts of Conservation Agriculture Technology Options on Household Income in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Ecological Economics, vol. 151, pp. 95–105, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.005.
• [5] P. Borrelli et al., “Land use and climate change impacts on global soil erosion by water (2015-2070),” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117, no. 36, pp. 21994–22001, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2001403117.
• [6] O. Erenstein, K. Sayre, P. Wall, J. Hellin, and J. Dixon, “Conservation Agriculture in Maize- and Wheat-Based Systems in the (Sub)tropics: Lessons from Adaptation Initiatives in South Asia, Mexico, and Southern Africa,” Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 180–206, Feb. 2012, doi: 10.1080/10440046.2011.620230.

Studies on Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability

• [7] S. Knapp and M. G. A. van der Heijden, “A global meta-analysis of yield stability in organic and conservation agriculture,” Nat Commun, vol. 9, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05956-1.
• [8] C. Palm, H. Blanco-Canqui, F. DeClerck, L. Gatere, and P. Grace, “Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: An overview,” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 187, pp. 87–105, Apr. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.010.
• [9] N. Verhulst, Conservation Agriculture, Improving Soil Quality for Sustainable Production Systems? CRC Press, 2010, pp. 137–208. doi: 10.1201/EBK1439800577-7.
• [10] C. L. Outhwaite, P. McCann, and T. Newbold, “Agriculture and climate change are reshaping insect biodiversity worldwide,” Nature, vol. 605, no. 7908, Art. no. 7908, May 2022, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04644-x.

Historical Context of the Green Revolution

• [11] P. L. Pingali, “Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 109, no. 31, pp. 12302–12308, Jul. 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912953109.

Studies on Tillage and Soil Emissions

• [12] W. E. Judice, J. L. Griffin, C. A. Jones, L. M. Etheredge, and M. E. Salassi, “Weed Control and Economics Using Reduced Tillage Programs in Sugarcane,” Weed Technology, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 319–325, Jun. 2006, doi: 10.1614/WT-05-094R.1.
• [13] T. O. West and G. Marland, “A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions, and net carbon flux in agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the United States,” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 217–232, Sep. 2002, doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00233-X.
• [14] N. La Scala, D. Bolonhezi, and G. T. Pereira, “Short-term soil CO2 emission after conventional and reduced tillage of a no-till sugar cane area in southern Brazil,” Soil and Tillage Research, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 244–248, Dec. 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.still.2005.11.012.

Climate Change and Erosion Control

• [15] L. Schreefel, R. P. O. Schulte, I. J. M. de Boer, A. P. Schrijver, and H. H. E. van Zanten, “Regenerative agriculture – the soil is the base,” Global Food Security, vol. 26, p. 100404, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100404.
• [16] D. R. Montgomery, “Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability,” PNAS, vol. 104, no. 33, pp. 13268–13272, Aug. 2007, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611508104.
• [17] C. M. Pittelkow et al., “Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture,” Nature, vol. 517, no. 7534, pp. 365–368, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1038/nature13809.