Regenerative agriculture is one of the most talked-about movements in Australian food right now. The environmental claims — improved soil health, carbon sequestration, biodiversity restoration — are well documented and increasingly persuasive. But I keep hearing a different claim that interests me more as a food writer: that regeneratively farmed food actually tastes better and is more nutritious.

Is that true? I went looking for evidence.

What regenerative agriculture actually means

Before we get into the food quality question, a quick definition. Regenerative agriculture is a set of farming practices focused on restoring and improving soil health. Key practices include:

• Minimal or no tillage
• Cover cropping
• Diverse crop rotations
• Integration of livestock with cropping
• Reduced or eliminated synthetic fertiliser and pesticide use
• Composting and organic matter addition

The goal is to rebuild topsoil, increase soil organic matter, improve water retention, and support soil biology. The environmental benefits are supported by substantial research.

In Australia, regenerative agriculture is growing rapidly. Operations like Moffitts Farm in NSW, Wilmot Cattle Co in Queensland, and numerous smaller operations across Victoria and South Australia are leading the movement. Several large pastoral companies have also begun transitioning parts of their operations.

The taste question

Let’s start with the subjective. Does regeneratively farmed food taste better?

I’ve done side-by-side comparisons where I could source equivalent products from regenerative and conventional farms. Beef, vegetables, eggs, and dairy. My honest assessment: sometimes yes, sometimes no, and the difference is often subtle.

Regenerative beef tends to have more flavour complexity, particularly in fattier cuts. The fat has a cleaner, more varied flavour profile compared to grain-finished conventional beef. Grass-fed regenerative lamb is consistently excellent, but grass-fed conventional lamb can be excellent too.

Vegetables are harder to assess. Soil-grown tomatoes from regenerative farms taste wonderful, but so do soil-grown tomatoes from well-managed conventional farms. The biggest flavour difference isn’t between regenerative and conventional — it’s between any fresh, locally grown produce and the stuff that’s been trucked across the country.

Eggs are where I’ve noticed the most consistent difference. Eggs from genuinely regeneratively managed pasture — where the chickens are rotated through diverse, healthy pasture — tend to have richer, more deeply coloured yolks and a more complex flavour. But this might be more about the pasture access than the regenerative management specifically.

The nutrition question

This is where it gets more interesting, and more contested.

A 2023 study published in PeerJ compared the nutrient density of crops grown on regenerative farms versus conventional farms. The regenerative crops showed higher levels of certain minerals (particularly potassium, calcium, and zinc), higher phytochemical content, and more favourable omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratios.

However, the sample sizes were small, the variability between farms was high, and the researchers themselves cautioned against broad conclusions. Soil type, climate, specific practices, and crop variety all influence nutrient content, and isolating the effect of “regenerative” versus “conventional” is methodologically challenging.

Other studies have found less clear-cut results. A meta-analysis of organic farming (which overlaps significantly with regenerative practices) found modest improvements in antioxidant content but no consistent difference in macronutrient levels.

The honest summary: there’s suggestive evidence that regenerative farming may produce more nutrient-dense food, but the research is early-stage and the effects are not dramatic enough to be a primary reason for choosing regenerative products.

What the soil scientists say

I spoke with a soil scientist at the University of Melbourne who works on soil-food quality relationships. Her take: “The logic is sound. Healthier soils with more diverse biology should produce plants with access to a wider range of minerals and should support more complex secondary metabolite production. But translating soil health into measurable food quality differences is harder than people assume.”

She noted that the biggest factor in food quality is probably harvest timing and freshness — the sooner you eat something after it’s picked, the more nutrients it retains. Regenerative produce that’s eaten locally and fresh will almost always be more nutritious than anything shipped long distances, regardless of farming method.

The honest case for regenerative food

If the taste and nutrition advantages are modest and variable, why should you seek out regeneratively farmed food?

Because the environmental case is strong and getting stronger. Regenerative agriculture builds soil carbon, improves water cycles, reduces erosion, supports biodiversity, and reduces dependence on synthetic inputs. In a country like Australia, where topsoil degradation and water scarcity are existential agricultural challenges, these benefits matter enormously.

You might not taste the difference in every bite. But the system that produced the food is healthier, more resilient, and more sustainable. That has value even when it doesn’t show up on a flavour wheel.

Where to find it

Look for farms and brands that describe their specific practices rather than just using the label “regenerative.” Ask at farmers markets about grazing management, soil practices, and input use. Several Australian certifications are emerging, though the landscape is still developing.

The best way to support regenerative agriculture is to buy directly from regenerative farmers when you can. The premium you pay goes directly to funding better land management, and you get food that’s at least as good as — and sometimes better than — the conventional alternative.