Interview with iFarming magazine.
Regenerative agriculture is a long journey in which farmers learn to work with nature, not against it
It would be hard to find a farmer in Ukraine who has never heard the name Mykhaylo Draganchuk. To some, he is one of the first advocates of no-till farming; to others, he is a practitioner who speaks honestly not only about successes but also about mistakes; and to still others, he is the person who paved the way for understanding soil as a living system. Mykhailo Draganchuk is a farmer and expert with many years of experience in No-till farming, an initiator and driving force behind professional discussions on soil health, regenerative agriculture, and the adaptation of agricultural systems to climate challenges.
Mr. Mykhaylo is not only a theorist and advocate of regenerative approaches but also a practitioner with his own farming experience. Since 1991, he has run his own farm in Crimea, where he worked under arid conditions, with soil erosion and water scarcity — and it was there that he began actively implementing No-till and other regenerative practices. His experience in Crimea became a turning point for him in deeply rethinking agronomy: annual windstorms and soil degradation showed that conventional and even minimal tillage systems do not always work. It was then that abandoning tillage became not an ideology, but a practical necessity — and the foundation for the subsequent transition to regenerative agriculture.
In this conversation, we discuss the farmer’s path — a complex, uneven one, but, in the words of Mykhaylo Draganchuk himself, the only possible one if the goal is not simply a harvest, but the restoration of the land.
— Mykhaylo, could you explain what regenerative agriculture means to you? What does this concept mean to you?
— There are many definitions of regenerative agriculture, but for me, the essence is simple: if our goal is to restore the soil, improve its condition and functionality — we’re already moving in that direction. It’s important to understand that regenerative agriculture isn’t a single technology or a set of mandatory techniques. It’s a path. And every farmer follows this path at their own pace, using the tools and practices that suit their circumstances.
If we look at agricultural production from the perspective of how closely it aligns with natural processes, then traditional intensive soil cultivation — deep plowing, numerous mechanical interventions — stands as far removed from them as possible. In nature, no one cultivates the soil. Therefore, technologies that aim to minimize or completely eliminate mechanical tillage are logically closer to the natural model. Ideally, this is No-till. However, there is a wide gap between the classical system and No-till technology, and everyone navigates it differently: some abandon plowing, some reduce the number of tillage operations, and some switch to vertical or strip tillage. All of this represents a move toward soil restoration.
— What are the main principles of regenerative agriculture? What is this system based on?
— In regenerative agriculture, we typically speak of six basic principles of soil health. It is through these principles that we effectively manage key ecosystem processes — energy, water, mineral cycles, and the dynamics of soil biota. Regardless of the country or continent, the logic behind these principles remains the same.
The first principle is minimal soil disturbance. Tillage has the greatest impact on the destruction of soil structure, so the goal is to minimize mechanical intervention as much as possible. This also applies to chemical impacts — pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and even excessive application of organic matter.
The second principle is soil cover. The soil must be constantly covered with crop residues or cover crops. Bare soil does not exist in nature, and this is one of the basic clues to how a stable ecosystem functions.
The third principle is diversity. Its foundation is crop rotation. Monoculture production is a starting point, not a stable state of the system. The more crops in the rotation, the higher the level of biological stability. If economic factors force a reduction in the number of crops, diversity is compensated for through cover crops.
The fourth principle is a constantly living root system in the soil. The longer a plant remains active throughout the year, the more actively soil microorganisms are nourished, and all ecosystem processes are sustained. When cash crops finish their growing season, cover crops can be sown — and living roots will once again be active in the soil.
The fifth principle is the integration of animals into the farming system. This is still rare in Ukraine, but it is exactly how natural ecosystems function: plants, animals, and microorganisms form a closed cycle of nutrient and organic matter circulation.
And the sixth principle is understanding and accounting for context. Any practices must be adapted to specific conditions: soil, climate, precipitation levels, and the farm’s technical and financial resources. It’s not enough to simply replicate someone else’s experience — it’s important to understand where you’re working and what resources you have. When I spoke with Gabe Brown, he emphasized that context determines how and in what order all other principles are applied. His many years of experience are valuable not for universal recipes, but for the logic behind his decisions and his understanding of how to restore soil under specific conditions. In fact, he has become the person who has led thousands of farmers in various countries and demonstrated that soil regeneration is a real, albeit challenging, path.
— You do a lot of work on soil restoration, particularly on land following occupation and demining. What practical experience do you have in this area?
— Yes, Ukraine has gained unique experience in restoring soil following military operations in de-occupied territories, particularly in the Kherson region on the right bank. These lands lay fallow for a year: they were not cultivated, they were overgrown with weeds, and a significant portion was mined. After liberation, a fundamental question arose: what to do next? The first step is obvious — demining. However, the following dilemma immediately arises: how to restore such fields?
The traditional approach involves leaving the field fallow after demining: spending a year or two fighting weeds, tilling the soil, leveling the surface, incurring significant costs, and only then returning to production. This is a long, expensive process and means lost time.
At Dodola-2021 LLC, they took a different path. Because the fields were overgrown with tall weeds, mechanical work there was dangerous, so the idea arose to use desiccation with drones. After demining, only shell craters remained in the field that could not be removed: they were filled in, and then, as the farm’s manager, Vasyl Shtendera, recalls, they immediately sowed without any soil tillage. First, they planted sunflowers, and after harvesting them, they planted soybeans and other crops in the same fields. To reiterate, we’re talking about land that had lain fallow for a year without cultivation, and most of it was mined.
So, there’s always a choice: either clear the field and wait another year or two, spending money on preparation, or take a regenerative approach and put the land to work almost immediately.
Experience in soil restoration during wartime
— In the agricultural community, you’re primarily known as an advocate of No-till farming. How did the transition to regenerative agriculture come about? Is this a new phase, a new direction, or a logical progression for you?
— For me, regenerative agriculture is a much broader and deeper approach. No-till is just one of the regenerative practices, but it’s not enough to restore the soil.
Today we see very different approaches. There are No-till farmers who don’t use cover crops. And there are those who practice minimal tillage but actively implement cover crops and have a broader crop rotation. And here a logical question arises: which of them has actually made more progress toward improving the soil? The answer isn’t so clear-cut.
For me personally, this journey began with a rethinking. At one point, I wrote an article for the American magazine No-Till Farmer, where I quite categorically stated my position. I noticed that farmers switching to No-till initially set themselves a minimal goal — to preserve the soil. Yes, economics are important, but soil conservation is the fundamental goal. Over time, as a result, both the economy and the condition of the field improve, and erosion stops.
I experienced this firsthand in Crimea, where I faced dust storms practically every year. At first, I stopped plowing, switched to minimum tillage, and was convinced that this would be enough. But the problem didn’t go away: even with minimum tillage, the topsoil was still being blown away. Only a complete abandonment of tillage yielded results and actually stopped wind erosion. Even if no-till had given me nothing more than that, it would have been worth switching to it.
I see that farmers all over the world are following a similar path. First comes the economic aspect and the minimum goal: to stop soil degradation. Then, once the system stabilizes, the maximum goal emerges: not just to preserve the soil, but to improve it. And here it becomes clear that simply giving up tillage is not enough. When the abandonment of tillage is combined with extensive crop rotation, cover crops, and the integration of livestock, it becomes evident that this is no longer just No-till in the classical sense. It is a system that is more logically called regenerative agriculture.
That is precisely why I have come to the conclusion: we can only speak of true soil regeneration when there is a complete abandonment of tillage, and at the same time, all other tools — crop diversity, permanent cover, biology, livestock—work together as a single system.
— Do you mean giving up plowing alone, or tilling in general?
— I’m talking about completely eliminating mechanical tillage. But over time, I realized that it’s best not to be too categorical about this. I gradually came to the conclusion that excessive categorical thinking is the enemy of all good things. Not everyone is ready to give up tillage entirely right away, and that’s okay. Some reduce the depth of tillage, some cut back on the number of passes, and some switch to more conservative methods of intervention. All of this is also a step in the right direction.
The same applies to cover crops. Of course, the best option is multi-component mixtures, where diversity works. But if a farmer has planted at least one crop, such as oil radish, that is still better than leaving the field bare.
Ideally, the system works like this: No-till farming, multi-component cover crops, diverse crop rotation, integration of livestock, and preservation of crop residues. But it’s not necessary to achieve this in a single season. When a farmer finds themselves in a community of people who talk about soil health and share experiences, they naturally get drawn into this process and move forward. So I believe it’s extremely important to unite our farmers around the idea of improving Ukrainian soils.
Mykhaylo Draganchuk (right) visiting Mykhaylo Voytovyk in a cover crop field in the Kyiv region
— Mykhaylo, when you talk to farmers and colleagues, invite them to conferences, and explain why we need to discuss regenerative agriculture today, how often do you encounter the response: “This isn’t relevant right now; we just need to survive — there’s a war in the country”?
— I mostly talk to people who are already interested in this. There’s a saying: you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. A person has to be ready for this. And it’s not just about financial or technical capabilities — it’s first and foremost an internal decision.
When a farmer feels the desire to take a closer look at their soil, that’s already the first step. Next, they start looking for information and like-minded people, attend events, and listen. Every idea needs an incubation period. There are certain stages: at first, you hear it and think, “This can’t be true.” Then you see how it works for others, and you start to doubt your own skepticism and think, “There’s something to this.” And in the third stage, the desire to try it arises.
In any business, profit is the measure of success. But agriculture is unique. Here, it’s not just profit that matters, but also the quality of the soil from which that profit is derived. If there’s profit but the soil is degrading, it’s hard to call that a successful agribusiness. Problems and costs will grow every year. In addition, it is becoming important for the older generation to consider the condition in which the land is passed on to the next generation, since many farmers today are already landowners, not just tenants.
And one more thing. The new generation of farmers doesn’t want to repeat the cycle of grueling physical labor in the fields from dawn to dusk, which used to be the norm. They want a modern farm, modern equipment, and time for life — and they’re looking for different approaches. That’s exactly why the ideas of regenerative agriculture appeal to them more. They see in this not just agronomy, but a different model of life in agribusiness.
— What changes do you generally observe in approaches to soil cultivation across different regions of Ukraine?
— Much depends on the key problem farmers face. In the south, the primary focus is on moisture conservation. This is the main limiting factor forcing many to rethink soil cultivation.
In other regions, the motivation may be different. For example, in western Ukraine — Lviv and Volyn regions — farmers are more often seeking to improve the soil. They are actively beginning to work with cover crops. And interestingly, it is often difficult in these regions to sow cover crops in time after harvesting the main crop. That’s why there are examples of people specifically buying direct-seeding machines to plant cover crops without prior tillage. Then a revealing process takes place: the farmer sees how the soil changes under the cover crops, and at some point, they feel reluctant to degrade it again through mechanical tillage. Thus, the decision to stop tilling the soil comes not as an ideological choice, but as a logical consequence of personal experience.
Northern Ukraine has its own unique characteristics: there is a lot of sandy soil. It is difficult to achieve consistent, high yields there, and this is precisely what drives farmers to seek out different approaches. They start with the goal of improving the soil and increasing its productivity, and then gradually select regenerative practices to meet this objective.
In other words, while the journey may start from different contexts in each region, many ultimately arrive at similar solutions — based on their own experiences and needs.
Mykhaylo Draganchuk (left) and farmer Volodymyr Moklyak between two cornfields in Poltava Oblast. One was planted using No-till technology, the other using conventional methods
— Has the war changed your personal sense of the purpose of working the land? What does the phrase “working for the future” mean to you today?
— We used to think the war would last three or four months, but now we see it could drag on for years. Farmers aren’t waiting — they live for today, they work today. And they understand that now, more than ever, they need to be efficient, and that’s impossible without working the soil.
During the war, the need to conserve resources — both material and human — is felt particularly acutely. Whereas farms used to employ more people, today there simply aren’t enough. And one obvious way to adapt is to reduce the amount of work in the field. I’ve heard farmers say more than once that no-till is an American technology that emerged there solely due to a labor shortage, and that the situation in Ukraine is different — we don’t need it. The war quickly changed these perceptions. When there’s no one to do the work, reducing the number of field operations ceases to be an ideology — it becomes a necessity.
At the same time, the issue isn’t limited to a shortage of people. The world as a whole is moving toward conserving resources — soil, water, and energy. We are already seeing serious problems with water pollution and the consequences of excessive intensification. Therefore, this is not a simple “for or against” debate about a single technology — it is, in essence, a clash of different approaches to the future of agriculture.
— What role do precision technologies play in regenerative agriculture?
— It varies. For some, precision farming starts with controlling traffic on the field — where machinery follows precisely defined paths to minimize soil compaction. For others, it’s about working with data: analyzing field heterogeneity, applying fertilizers and pesticides more precisely, and taking a differentiated approach to resource management.
For example, organic matter can be applied uniformly across the entire field, or it can be applied differentially: more on the ridges, less in areas with better conditions. This is just one example, but any differentiation is already a step toward precision and informed soil management.
At the same time, it doesn’t really matter what tools the farmer uses—complex satellite systems or simpler digital solutions. Technology is evolving rapidly, and today many processes can be controlled literally from a smartphone. In my view, this is a true revolution.
It all depends on the willingness to work with information. I clearly see that the younger generation of farmers is much more open to this. For them, digital tools are not something complicated or unnecessary, but a normal part of the job. They view technology as a tool for increasing efficiency. And they find it interesting.
I am convinced that this trend will only grow stronger. We are entering a new era where the combination of regenerative approaches and precision technologies will become the norm, not the exception.