Seems like propaganda, not science. Way to simplified as per the possibilities of soil carbon sequestration. Nothing in this is distinct from certified organic systems of production, so why use the term regenerative?, even regenerative organic would be better, IMHO. Al
Many of the certified organic grain farmers here in arid Montana use a lot of cultivation, and some also say cover crops are an absolute no-go here. (Elsewhere in similarly dry conditions farmers are successfully employing both no-till and cover crops, but that's a topic of discussion for real farmers, which I surely am not.)
Minimizing tillage, keeping live roots in the ground as long as possible, and integrating diverse species in cropping systems and/or including multi-species cover crops are essential components of regenerative ag. When organic farmers incorporate those principles they are practicing regenerative farming. Otherwise, they are not. Both regenerative farming and organic farming have much to offer those of us committed to managing toward a healthy planet. I am totally in favor of a fully integrated regenerative organic program -- because without this it feels like I'm choosing between instruments of death/harm to the soil food web: is it death by the plow or by chemical cocktails? Ugly choice, so I'm cheering for regen organic!
I mentioned above that aridland farmers elsewhere produce small grains in ways that minimize both tillage and agrochemicals -- the pathway to this success being stimulating the development of healthy soil biota. I love this video highlighting the regenerative journey of Ian and Dianne Haggerty of Western Australia. This looks to me like excellent progress toward regenerative organic farming that is good for the planet, people, and profitability all at the same time.
And another hugely interesting, informative and inspiring video from Di Haggerty is here: