ArticleNature food2026
Regenerative agriculture improves productivity and profitability while reducing greenhouse gas emissions on Australian sheep farms.
Article in Nature food, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regenerative agriculture improves productivity and profitability while reducing greenhouse gas emissions on Australian sheep farms.Nature food · 2026Article
- Beyond regenerative grazing.Nature food · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Regenerative agriculture can be deconstructed into several constituent practices, including adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing, improved biodiversity, silvopasture, and minimizing cultivation and synthetic fertilizer inputs. Here, using farms across a rainfall gradient, we examined how three constituents-pasture species composition, antecedent soil organic carbon (SOC) and AMP grazing-influenced SOC accrual, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, production and profitability. Whole-farm stocking rate and rainfall exerted a stronger influence on pasture production, SOC, GHG emissions and profit than pasture diversity or grazing management. Production was more strongly associated with individual pasture species, rather than species diversity per se. Notwithstanding carbon removals through increased SOC stocks, enteric methane remained the dominant source of farm GHG emissions. Low-intensity grazing with short rest periods was generally more profitable, whereas AMP grazing promoted greater pasture growth, SOC accrual and emissions abatement; AMP also performed more favourably when emissions, profit and productivity were considered together. Persistent trade-offs between economic and environmental outcomes indicate that grazing regimes delivering the greatest SOC accrual and GHG mitigation are not necessarily the most profitable, reinforcing the need to rationalize objectives when designing resilient, practical and low-emissions farming systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.