Skip to main content
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government Here's how you know 
NIH NLM LogoLog in
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now.

Search PMC Full-Text Archive
Search PMC Full-Text Archive
Search in PMC
Advanced Search  User Guide
Journal List  PeerJ  PMC5831153
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
Logo of peerj
PeerJ. 2018; 6: e4428.
Published online 2018 Feb 26. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4428
PMCID: PMC5831153
PMID: 29503771
Regenerative agriculture: merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably
Claire E. LaCanne1 and Jonathan G. Lundgrencorresponding author2
Academic Editor: Sheila Colla
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
Associated Data
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Go to:
Abstract
Most cropland in the United States is characterized by large monocultures, whose productivity is maintained through a strong reliance on costly tillage, external fertilizers, and pesticides (Schipanski et al., 2016). Despite this, farmers have developed a regenerative model of farm production that promotes soil health and biodiversity, while producing nutrient-dense farm products profitably. Little work has focused on the relative costs and benefits of novel regenerative farming operations, which necessitates studying in situ, farmer-defined best management practices. Here, we evaluate the relative effects of regenerative and conventional corn production systems on pest management services, soil conservation, and farmer profitability and productivity throughout the Northern Plains of the United States. Regenerative farming systems provided greater ecosystem services and profitability for farmers than an input-intensive model of corn production. Pests were 10-fold more abundant in insecticide-treated corn fields than on insecticide-free regenerative farms, indicating that farmers who proactively design pest-resilient food systems outperform farmers that react to pests chemically. Regenerative fields had 29% lower grain production but 78% higher profits over traditional corn production systems. Profit was positively correlated with the particulate organic matter of the soil, not yield. These results provide the basis for dialogue on ecologically based farming systems that could be used to simultaneously produce food while conserving our natural resource base: two factors that are pitted against one another in simplified food production systems. To attain this requires a systems-level shift on the farm; simply applying individual regenerative practices within the current production model will not likely produce the documented results.

Keywords: Agroecology, Biodiversity, Conservation agriculture, Corn, Pest management, Yield, Profit, Soil organic matter
Go to:
Introduction
Development of synthetic fertilizers, hybrid crops, genetically modified crops, and policies that decouple farmer decisions from market demands all helped create a modern food production system which reduces the diversity of foods that are produced (Fausti & Lundgren, 2015; Pretty, 1995). This simplification of our food system contributes to climate change (Carlsson-Kanyama & Gonzalez, 2009), rising pollution (Beman et al., 2011; Morrissey et al., 2015), biodiversity loss (Butler, Vickery & Norris, 2007; Landis et al., 2008), and damaging land use changes (Johnston, 2014; Wright & Wimberly, 2013) that affect the sustainability, profitability and resilience of farms (Schipanski et al., 2016). Farmers experience the highest suicide rate of any profession in the United States, a rate nearly five-fold higher than the general public (McIntosh et al., 2016); the driving depression rates are related to conventional production practices (Beard et al., 2014). The scale of our food production system provides opportunities for solving some of these planetary scale problems (Lal, 2004; Teague et al., 2016), but requires a systems-level shift in the values and goals of our food production system that de-prioritizes solely generating high yields toward one that produces higher quality food while conserving our natural resource base.

The goal of regenerative farming systems (Rodale, 1983) is to increase soil quality and biodiversity in farmland while producing nourishing farm products profitably. Unifying principles consistent across regenerative farming systems include (1) abandoning tillage (or actively rebuilding soil communities following a tillage event), (2) eliminating spatio-temporal events of bare soil, (3) fostering plant diversity on the farm, and (4) integrating livestock and cropping operations on the land. Further characterization of a regenerative system is problematic because of the myriad combinations of farming practices that comprise a system targeting the regenerative goal. Other comparisons of conventional agriculture with alternative agriculture schemes do not compare in situ best management practices developed by farmers, and frequently ignore a key driver to decision making on farming operations: the examined systems’ relative net profit to the farmer (De Ponti, Rijk & Van Ittersum, 2012).

Go to:
Materials and Methods
Corn (Zea mays L.) was selected for our study due to its pre-eminence as a food crop in North America and globally. Corn is planted on 39.9% of all crop acres (NASS, 2017), or 4.8% (37.1 million ha) of the terrestrial land surface of the contiguous 48 states. In 2012, it generated 30.3% ($64,319 billion) of all gross crop value in the US (NASS, 2017). Nearly 100% of cornfields are treated annually with insecticides (NASS, 2017). We used a matrix of specific production practices (Table 1) to define each farm into one of two systems (regenerative or conventional). The most regenerative systems (n = 40 fields on 10 farms) used mixed multispecies cover crops (ranging from 2–40 plant species), were never-till, used no insecticides, and grazed livestock on their cropland. The most conventional farms practiced tillage at least annually (36 fields on eight farms), applied insecticides (as GM insect-resistant varieties and neonicotinoid seed treatments), and left their soil bare aside from the cash crop.

Table 1
Trait matrix used to assign farms to regenerative or conventional corn production systems.
The composite rank scores are based on the number of regenerative practices used on a particular farm. Farms whose rank scores are in the top 50% of farms are considered regenerative (shaded rows); those with rank scores in the lower half are conventional (white rows). To aid interpretation, additional traits of each system could be included in enhanced trait matrices. Organic operations are indicated by an asterisk in the “Reference town” column.

Reference town	Farm locations (latitude, longitude)	Cover crop (yes: 1; no: 0)	Insecticide (no: 1; yes: 0)	Other pesticides (no: 1; yes: 0)	Tillage (yes: 0; no: 1)	Grazed corn field (yes: 1; no: 0)	Composite rank score
Bladen, NE	40.31971, −98.57358	yes	no	yes	no	no	3
Bladen, NE	40.33703, −98.56301	no	yes	yes	yes	no	0
York, NE	40.63054, −97.66534	yes	no	yes	no	no	3
York, NE	40.97390, −97.49031	no	yes	yes	yes	no	0
Bismarck, ND	46.85280, −100.60131	yes	no	no	no	yes	5
Bismarck, ND	46.85280, −100.35145	no	yes	yes	no	no	1
Bismarck, ND	46.81734, −100.51257	yes	no	yes	no	yes	4
Bismarck, ND	47.14250, −100.19720	no	yes	yes	no	no	1
White, SD*	44.42572, −96.58806	yes	no	no	yes	no	3
White, SD	44.41155, −96.60008	no	yes	yes	yes	no	0
Pipestone, MN*	44.11446, −96.32468	yes	no	no	yes	no	3
Pipestone, MN	44.12416, −96.36422	no	yes	yes	yes	no	0
Toronto, SD	44.59248, −96.57923	yes	yes	yes	no	no	3
Toronto, SD	44.57960, −96.58367	no	yes	yes	yes	no	0
Gary, SD*	44.80565, −96.34708	yes	no	no	yes	yes	4
Gary, SD	44.80689, −96.35465	no	yes	yes	yes	no	0
Arlington, SD	44.41566, −97.18795	yes	no	yes	no	yes	4
Arlington, SD	44.42644, −97.25077	no	yes	yes	yes	no	0
Lake Norden, SD	44.58976, −97.08649	yes	yes	yes	no	yes	3
Lake Norden, SD	44.55.6839, −97.243820	no	yes	yes	yes	no	0
Open in a separate window
Soil organic matter, insect pest populations, and corn yield and profit were assessed for each field. Soil cores (8.5 cm deep, 5 cm in diameter; 30 g of soil each; n = 4 samples per field that were made a composite sample; only one field was sampled per farm- selected by the producer- and two farms were omitted due to adverse weather during the sampling event) were collected at least 10 m from one another during anthesis. Samples were cleaned of plant residue, ground, and dried to constant weight at 105 °C. Particulate soil organic matter (POM) was determined by screening each sample (soaked in 5 g L−1 aqueous hexametaphosphate) through 500 um (course POM) and 53 um (fine POM) sieves and then applying the loss on ignition (LOI) technique (Davies, 1974). Insect pests were enumerated through dissections of all aboveground plant tissues (25 plants per field). Major pests of corn (rootworm adults, caterpillar pests, and aphids) are all present in cornfields at this crop developmental stage (Lundgren et al., 2015), and this was substantiated in the observations in this study as well. Yields were gathered from three randomly selected 3.5 m sections of row from each field. Gross revenue for each field were considered as yield and return on grain, and additional revenue streams (e.g., animal weight gain resulting from grazing). Total direct costs for each field were calculated based on the costs of corn seed, cover crop seed, drying/cleaning grain, crop insurance, tillage, planting, fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation.

Go to:
Results and Discussion
Insect pest populations were more than 10 fold higher on the insecticide-treated farms than on the insecticide-free regenerative farms (ANOVA; F1,77 = 13.52, P <0.001; Fig. 1). Pest populations were numerically dominated by aphids, but each of the individual pest species followed the same pattern of the aggregated data; none of these pests were at economically damaging levels, as observed in other work in the region (Hutchison et al., 2010; Lundgren et al., 2015). Pest problems in agriculture are often the product of low biodiversity and simple community structure on numerous spatial scales (Tscharntke et al., 2012). Hundreds of invertebrate species have been inventoried from cornfields of the Northern Plains of the US (Lundgren et al., 2015; Welch & Lundgren, 2016), but these communities represent only 25% of the insect species that lived in ancestral habitats (e.g., prairie) that cornfields replaced in this region (Schmid et al., 2015). Pest abundance is lower in cornfields that have greater insect diversity, enhanced biological network strength and greater community evenness (Lundgren & Fausti, 2015). Suggested mechanisms to explain how invertebrate diversity and network interactions reduce pests include predation (Letourneau et al., 2009), competition (Barbosa et al., 2009), and other processes that may not be easily predicted. What practices foster diversity in agroecosystems? In our studies, farmers that replaced insecticide use with agronomic forms of plant diversity invariably had fewer pest problems than those with strict monocultures. Reducing insect diversity and relying solely on insecticide use establishes a scenario whereby pests persist and resurge through adaptation, as was observed by our forebears (Perkins, 1982; Stern et al., 1959). Applying winter cover crops (Lundgren & Fergen, 2011), lengthening crop rotations (Bullock, 1992), diversifying field margins using conservation mixes (Haaland, Naisbit & Bersier, 2011), and allowing or promoting non-crop plants between crop rows (Khan et al., 2006) are other agronomically sound practices that regenerative farmers successfully apply to improve the resilience of their system to pest proliferation.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is peerj-06-4428-g001.jpg
Figure 1
Insecticide-treated cornfields had higher pest abundance than untreated, regenerative cornfields.
Values presented are mean ± SEM total pests (corn rootworm adults, European corn borers, Western bean cutworm, other caterpillars, and aphids) per m2, and were assessed during corn anthesis. The systems were regarded as best-management practices for the sampled region by the farmers themselves. All conventional farms planted neonicotinoid-treated, Bt corn seed to prophylactically reduce pests, and some cornfields were also sprayed with insecticides. Regenerative farms included >3 of the following practices: use of a multispecies cover crop, abandonment of insecticide, abandonment of tillage, and the cropland was grazed, etc. Pest abundance was significantly different in the two systems (α = 0.05; n = 39 regenerative cornfields and 40 conventional cornfields).

Despite having lower grain yields, the regenerative system was nearly twice as profitable as the conventional corn farms (ANOVA; F1,70 = 14.35, P <  0.001; Fig. 2). Regenerative farms produced 29% less corn grain than conventional operations (8,481 ± 684 kg/ha vs. 11,884 ±  648 kg/ha; ANOVA; F1,70 = 8.39, P = 0.01). Yield reductions are commonly reported in more ecologically based food production systems relative to conventional systems (De Ponti, Rijk & Van Ittersum, 2012). However, only 4% of calories produced as corn grain is eaten directly by humans, and almost none is consumed as grain. Thirty-six percent of grain is fed to livestock (NASS, 2017), and corn-fed beef contains only 13% of the total calories produced by corn grain. Two ways that regenerative systems could increase the human food produced per ha in cornfields would be to increase the diversity of livestock on the field, or increasing the duration of grazing current stock. The relative profitability in the two systems was driven by the high seed and fertilizer costs that conventional farms incurred (32% of the gross income went into these inputs on conventional fields, versus only 12% in regenerative fields), and the higher revenue generated from grain and other products produced (e.g., meat production) on the regenerative corn fields (Fig. 2). The high seed costs on conventional farms are largely attributable to premiums paid by farmers for prophylactic insecticide traits (no insecticide was applied as spray on these fields), whose value is questionable due to pest resistance and persistent low abundance for some targeted pests in the Northern Plains (Hutchison et al., 2007; Krupke et al., 2017). Regenerative farmers reduced their fertilizer costs by including legume-based cover crops on their fields during the fallow period (Ebelhar, Frye & Blevins, 1984), adopting no-till practices (Lal, Reicosky & Hanson, 2007), and grazing the crop field with livestock (Russelle, Entz & Franzluebbers, 2010). They also received higher value for their crop by receiving an organic premium, by selling their grain directly to consumers as seed or feed, and by extracting more than just corn revenue from their field (e.g., by grazing cover mixes with livestock).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is peerj-06-4428-g002.jpg
Figure 2
Regenerative corn fields generate nearly twice the profit of conventionally managed corn fields.
The heights of the bars represent average gross profits across all 40 fields (in each treatment). Profit was calculated using direct costs and revenues for each field and excludes any overhead and indirect expenses. Regenerative cornfields implemented three or more practices such as planting a multispecies cover mix, eliminating pesticide use, abandoning tillage, and integrating livestock onto the crop ground. Conventional cornfields used fewer than two of these practices. The regenerative systems had 70% higher profit than conventional cornfields (α = 0.05; n = 36 fields in each system). Seed drying, corn planting, and cover crop planting are present on the graphs, but were negligible costs.

The profitability of a corn field was not related to grain yields (F1,70 < 0.001; P = 0.98; r2 < 0.01; profit = −0.0006[yield] + 1,274), but was positively correlated with the level of POM in the soil, and inversely related to the bulk density of the soil (Fig. 3; the SOM quantities upon which %POM are presented here are reported in Table 2). Organic matter is considered by some as the basis for productivity in the soil (Karlen et al., 1997; Tiessen, Cuevas & Chacon, 1994), and soils with high SOM typically have lower bulk density. SOM increases water infiltration rates, and supports greater microbial and animal abundance and diversity (Lehman et al., 2015). The components of POM are the labile portion of this SOM, and are frequently used to study the effects of management-based differences in SOM (Cambardella & Elliott, 1992). The only way to generate SOM in situ in cropland is through fostering biology, which inherently is driven by plant communities through sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere. Eliminating tillage (Pikul Jr et al., 2007; Six, Elliott & Paustian, 1999), implementing cover crops (Ding et al., 2006; Kuo, Sainju & Jellum, 1997), and cycling plant residue through livestock (Tracy & Zhang, 2008) all enhance this process, and all are important practices used in regenerative food systems that raise POM in the soil.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is peerj-06-4428-g003.jpg
Figure 3
Corn fields with high particulate organic matter and low bulk density in the soil have greater profits.
Corn fields were managed under either conventional or regenerative systems, and profit was calculated using direct costs and revenues for each field and excludes any overhead and indirect expenses. (general linear regression model; F1,16 = 7.84; P = 0.01; r2 = 0.34; profit = 29.68[POM]–66.94; bulk density; F1,19 = 5.23; P = 0.03; r2 = 0.24; profit = −975 [POM] + 1,593).

Table 2
Soil organic matter on regenerative and conventional corn farms.
Shaded rows represent regenerative corn farms.

Reference town	Farm locations (latitude, longitude)	SOM (%)
Bladen, NE	40.31971, −98.57358	6.23
Bladen, NE	40.33703, −98.56301	4.52
York, NE	40.63054, −97.66534	6.21
York, NE	40.97390, −97.49031	5.55
Bismarck, ND	46.85280, −100.60131	4.19
Bismarck, ND	46.85280, −100.35145	N/A
Bismarck, ND	46.81734, −100.51257	5.82
Bismarck, ND	47.14250, −100.19720	3.85
White, SD	44.42572, −96.58806	N/A
White, SD	44.41155, −96.60008	5.52
Pipestone, MN	44.11446, −96.32468	N/A
Pipestone, MN	44.12416, −96.36422	4.75
Toronto, SD	44.59248, −96.57923	7.60
Toronto, SD	44.57960, −96.58367	6.38
Gary, SD	44.80565, −96.34708	7.53
Gary, SD	44.80689, −96.35465	7.36
Arlington, SD	44.41566, −97.18795	8.17
Arlington, SD	44.42644, −97.25077	8.18
Lake Norden, SD	44.58976, −97.08649	4.56
Lake Norden, SD	44.55.6839, −97.243820	6.26
Open in a separate window
Go to:
Conclusions
The farmers themselves have devised an ecologically based production system comprised of multiple practices that are woven into a profitable farm that promotes ecosystem services. Regenerative farms fundamentally challenge the current food production paradigm that maximizes gross profits at the expense of net gains for the farmer. Key elements of this successful approach to farming include

1.
By promoting soil biology and organic matter and biodiversity on their farms, regenerative farmers required fewer costly inputs like insecticides and fertilizers, and managed their pest populations more effectively.
2.
Soil organic matter was a more important driver of proximate farm profitability than yields were, in part because the regenerative farms marketed their products differently or had a diversified income stream from a single field.
Go to:
Supplemental Information
Supplemental Information 1
Raw data:
The raw data used to generate the published results.

Click here for additional data file.(24K, xlsx)
Go to:
Acknowledgments
We thank our 20 farmers throughout the Northern Plains for providing us with study sites and management information. E Adee, M Bredeson, J Fergen, D Grosz, K Januschka, N Koens, R LaCanne, M La Vallie, A Leiferman, J Lundgren, A Martens, C Mogren, K Nemec, A Nikolas, J Pecenka, G Schen, C Snyder, & K Weathers assisted field work. R Conser, M Entz, C Morrissey, & R Teague provided comments on earlier drafts. M Longfellow and L Hesler identified invertebrates. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication does not imply recommendation or endorsement by South Dakota State University or Ecdysis Foundation.

Go to:
Funding Statement
The project was supported by USDA PMAP Award # 2013-34381-21245, a NC-SARE graduate student fellowship GNC16-227, and donations of farmers and beekeepers to Ecdysis Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Go to:
Additional Information and Declarations
Competing Interests

Jonathan G. Lundgren is the CEO for Blue Dasher Farm and director of the Ecdysis Foundation. Claire E. LaCanne is an employee of the University of Minnesota, and was a graduate student for South Dakota State University during her thesis program (this work is part of that thesis).

Author Contributions

Claire E. LaCanne conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Jonathan G. Lundgren conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Data Availability

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw data is provided as a Supplemental File.

Go to:
References
Barbosa et al. (2009) Barbosa P, Hines J, Kaplan I, Martinson H, Szczepaniec A, Szendrei Z. Associational resistance and susceptibility: having right or wrong neighbors. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution & Systematics. 2009;40:1–20. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120242. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Beard et al. (2014) Beard JD, Umbach DM, Hoppin JA, Richards M, Alavanja MCR, Blair A, Sandler DP, Kamel F. Pesticide exposure and depression among male private pesticide applicators in the agricultural health study. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2014;122:984–991. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1307450. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Beman et al. (2011) Beman JM, Chow C-E, King AL, Feng Y, Fuhrman JA, Andersson A, Bates NR, Popp BN, Hutchings DA. Global declines in oceanic nitrification rates as a consequence of ocean acidification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011;108:208–213. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1011053108. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Bullock (1992) Bullock DG. Crop rotation. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 1992;11:309–326. doi: 10.1080/07352689209382349. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Butler, Vickery & Norris (2007) Butler SJ, Vickery JA, Norris K. Farmland biodiversity and the footprint of agriculture. Science. 2007;315:381–384. doi: 10.1126/science.1136607. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Cambardella & Elliott (1992) Cambardella CA, Elliott ET. Particulate soil organic-matter changes across a grassland cultivation sequence. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1992;56:777–783. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1992.03615995005600030017x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Carlsson-Kanyama & Gonzalez (2009) Carlsson-Kanyama A, Gonzalez AD. Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2009;89:1704S–1709S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.26736AA. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Davies (1974) Davies BE. Loss-on-ignition as an estimate of soil organic matter. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1974;38:150–151. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1974.03615995003800010046x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
De Ponti, Rijk & Van Ittersum (2012) De Ponti T, Rijk B, Van Ittersum MK. The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agricultural Systems. 2012;108:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2011.12.004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Ding et al. (2006) Ding G, Liu X, Herbert S, Novak J, Amarasiriwardena D, Xing B. Effect of cover crop management on soil organic matter. Geoderma. 2006;130:229–239. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.01.019. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Ebelhar, Frye & Blevins (1984) Ebelhar SA, Frye WW, Blevins RL. Nitrogen from legume cover crops for no-tillage corn. Agronomy Journal. 1984;76:51–55. doi: 10.2134/agronj1984.00021962007600010014x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Fausti & Lundgren (2015) Fausti SW, Lundgren JG. The causes and unintended consequences of a paradigm shift in corn production practices. Environmental Science & Policy. 2015;52:41–50. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.017. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Haaland, Naisbit & Bersier (2011) Haaland C, Naisbit RE, Bersier L-F. Sown wildflower strips for insect conservation: a review. Insect Conservation and Diversity. 2011;4:60–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4598.2010.00098.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Hutchison et al. (2010) Hutchison WD, Burkness EC, Mitchell PD, Moon RD, Leslie TW, Fleischer SJ, Abrahamson M, Hamilton KL, Steffey KL, Gray ME, Hellmich RL, Kaster LV, Hunt TE, Wright RJ, Pecinovsky K, Rabaey TL, Flood BR, Raun ES. Areawide suppression of European corn borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-Bt maize grower. Science. 2010;330:222–225. doi: 10.1126/science.1190242. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Hutchison et al. (2007) Hutchison WD, Burkness E, Moon R, Leslie T, Fleischer S, Abrahamson M, Hamilton K, Steffey K, Gray M. Evidence for regional suppression of European corn borer populations in Bt maize in the midwestern US: analysis of long-term time series’ from three states. XVI international plant protection congress; 2007. pp. 512–513. [Google Scholar]
Johnston (2014) Johnston CA. Agricultural expansion: land use shell game in the US Northern Plains. Landscape Ecology. 2014;29:81–95. doi: 10.1007/s10980-013-9947-0. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Karlen et al. (1997) Karlen DL, Mausbach MJ, Doran JW, Cline RG, Harris RF, Schuman GE. Soil quality: a concept, definition, and framework for evaluation. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1997;61:4–10. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100010001x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Khan et al. (2006) Khan ZR, Pickett JA, Wadhams LJ, Hassanali A, Midega CAO. Combined control of Striga hermonthica and stemborers by maize-Desmodium spp. intercrops. Crop Protection. 2006;25:989–995. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2006.01.008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Krupke et al. (2017) Krupke CH, Holland JD, Long EY, Eitzer BD. Planting of neonicotinoid-treated maize poses risks for honey bees and other non-target organisms over a wide area without consistent crop yield benefit. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2017 Epub ahead of print May 22 2017. [Google Scholar]
Kuo, Sainju & Jellum (1997) Kuo S, Sainju UM, Jellum EJ. Winter cover crop effects on soil organic carbon and carbohydrate in soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1997;61:145–152. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100010022x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lal (2004) Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science. 2004;304:1624–1627. doi: 10.1126/science.1097396. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lal, Reicosky & Hanson (2007) Lal R, Reicosky DC, Hanson JD. Evolution of the plow over 10,000 years and the rationale for no-till farming. Soil & Tillage Research. 2007;93:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2006.11.004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Landis et al. (2008) Landis DA, Gardiner MM, Van der Werf W, Swinton SM. Increasing corn for biofuel production reduces biocontrol services in agricultural landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2008;105:20552–20557. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0804951106. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lehman et al. (2015) Lehman RM, Cambardella CA, Stott DE, Acosta-Martinez V, Manter DK, Buyer JS, Maul JE, Smith JL, Collins HP, Halvorson JJ, Kremer RJ, Lundgren JG, Ducey TF, Jin VL, Karlen DL. Understanding and enhancing soil biological health: the solution for reversing soil degradation. Sustainability. 2015;7:988–1027. doi: 10.3390/su7010988. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Letourneau et al. (2009) Letourneau DK, Jedlicka JA, Bothwell SG, Moreno CR. Effects of natural enemy biodiversity on the suppression of arthropod herbivores in terrestrial ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 2009;40:573–592. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120320. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lundgren & Fausti (2015) Lundgren JG, Fausti SW. Trading biodiversity for pest problems. Science Advances. 2015;1:e1500558. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1500558. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lundgren & Fergen (2011) Lundgren JG, Fergen JK. Enhancing predation of a subterranean insect pest: a conservation benefit of winter vegetation in agroecosystems. Applied Soil Ecology. 2011;51:9–16. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.08.005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lundgren et al. (2015) Lundgren JG, McDonald TM, Rand TA, Fausti SW. Spatial and numerical relationships of arthropod communities associated with key pests of maize. Journal of Applied Entomology. 2015;136:446–456. doi: 10.1111/jen.12215. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
McIntosh et al. (2016) McIntosh WLW, Spies E, Stone DM, Lokey CN, Trudeau A-R, Bartholow B. Suicide rates by occupational group—17 states, 2012. MMWR Morbity and Mortality Weekly Report 2016. 2016;65:641–645. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Morrissey et al. (2015) Morrissey CA, Mineau P, Devries JH, Sanchez-Bayo F, Liess M, Cavallaro MC, Liber K. Neonicotinoid contamination of global surface waters and associated risk to aquatic invertebrates: a review. Environment International. 2015;74:291–303. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.10.024. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
NASS (2017) National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) National Agriculture Statistics Service. Washington, D.C., USDAhttp://www.nass.usda.gov 2017
Perkins (1982) Perkins JH. Insects, experts, and the insecticide crisis. Plenum Press; New York: 1982. [Google Scholar]
Pikul Jr et al. (2007) Pikul Jr JL, Osborne SE, Ellsbury MM, Riedell WE. Particulate organic matter and water-stable aggregation of soil under contrasting management. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2007;71:766–776. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2005.0334. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Pretty (1995) Pretty JN. Regenerating agriculture: policies and practice for sustainability and self-reliance. Joseph Henry Press; Washington, D.C.: 1995. [Google Scholar]
Rodale (1983) Rodale R. Breaking new ground: the search for a sustainable agriculture. The Futurist. 1983;17:15–20. [Google Scholar]
Russelle, Entz & Franzluebbers (2010) Russelle MP, Entz MH, Franzluebbers AJ. Reconsidering integrated crop-livestock systems in North America. Agronomy Journal. 2010;99:325–334. [Google Scholar]
Schipanski et al. (2016) Schipanski ME, MAcDonald GK, Rosenzweig S, Chappell MJ, Bennett EM, Kerr RB, Blesh J, Crews TE, Drinkwater LE, Lundgren JG, Schnarr C. Realizing resilient food systems. Bioscience. 2016;66:600–610. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biw052. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Schmid et al. (2015) Schmid RB, Lehman RM, Brözel VS, Lundgren JG. Gut bacterial symbiont diversity within beneficial insects linked to reductions in local biodiversity. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 2015;108:993–999. doi: 10.1093/aesa/sav081. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Six, Elliott & Paustian (1999) Six J, Elliott ET, Paustian K. Aggregate and soil organic matter dynamics under conventional and no-tillage systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1999;63:1350–1358. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1999.6351350x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Stern et al. (1959) Stern VM, Smith RF, Van den Bosch R, Hagen KS. The integrated control concept. Hilgardia. 1959;29:81–101. doi: 10.3733/hilg.v29n02p081. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Teague et al. (2016) Teague WR, Apfelbaum S, Lal R, Kreuter UP, Rowntree J, Davies CA, Wang F. The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 2016;71:156–164. doi: 10.2489/jswc.71.2.156. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Tiessen, Cuevas & Chacon (1994) Tiessen H, Cuevas E, Chacon P. The role of soil organic matter in sustaining soil fertility. Nature. 1994;371:783–785. doi: 10.1038/371783a0. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Tracy & Zhang (2008) Tracy BF, Zhang Y. Soil compaction, corn yield response, and soil nutrient pool dynamics within an integrated crop-livestock system in Illinois. Crop Science. 2008;48:1211–1218. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2007.07.0390. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Tscharntke et al. (2012) Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Wanger TC, Jackson L, Motzke I, Perfecto I, Vandermeer J, Whitbread A. Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation. 2012;151:53–59. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.068. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Welch & Lundgren (2016) Welch KD, Lundgren JG. An exposure-based, ecology-driven framework for selection of indicator species for insecticide risk assessment. Food Webs. 2016;9:46–54. doi: 10.1016/j.fooweb.2016.02.004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Wright & Wimberly (2013) Wright CK, Wimberly MC. Recent land use change in the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and wetlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2013;110:4134–4319. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1215404110. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from PeerJ are provided here courtesy of PeerJ, Inc
Other Formats
PDF (303K)
Actions
Cite
Collections
Share
     
RESOURCES
Similar articles
Cited by other articles
Links to NCBI Databases
Follow NCBI
Connect with NLM

  
National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies
FOIA
HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help
Accessibility
Careers

NLM
NIH
HHS
USA.gov
Skip to content
RegenX Full Logo blue
Home
About us
Blog
Resources
Contact Us
28 Insightful Regenerative Agriculture Statistics
Rachel Nguyen
Regen Ag
December 15, 2023
 
In the heart of modern agriculture lies a growing movement, one that promises to redefine the essence of farming and food production – regenerative agriculture. At the core of this revolution are data-driven insights that highlight the tangible benefits of nurturing the earth, optimizing food systems, and reducing our carbon footprint.

Join us as we delve into the most current statistics on how regenerative agriculture practices can have a profound impact on the economy, climate, biodiversity, and more. From the improved soil carbon levels to the advanced farming practices reducing annual CO2 emissions, the numbers offer a story of hope and progress.

Statistics about economic impact:
1. Regenerative farming is up to 60% more profitable after six years (Climate Farmers).

This statistic reflects the long-term financial benefits of regenerative farming methods, which can lead to lower input costs and higher profit margins due to improved soil health and reduced need for expensive synthetic inputs.

2. Regenerative fields yield 29% lower grain production but 78% higher profits than traditional systems (NCBI).

Although regenerative practices may initially result in lower yields, the overall profitability is higher due to factors like reduced input costs and potentially higher market prices for sustainably produced crops.

3. Regenerative practices can increase profitability by up to 120% for U.S. wheat farmers (BCG).

RegenX - regenerative agriculture statistics

In the context of U.S. wheat production, the shift to regenerative agriculture can significantly enhance farmers’ income through improved soil fertility and possibly qualifying for carbon credits.

4. Regenerative agriculture is seen as a climate solution and supplemental income source for farmers. Farmers would have to receive an additional $40/acre in profit to switch from conventional tillage to no-till (Purdue University).

By adopting regenerative practices, farmers can contribute to climate change mitigation and potentially earn additional revenue through carbon sequestration incentives. However, the current financing for regenerative agriculture participation is still a low incentive to induce widespread adoption.

5. A 15%–25% return on investment is possible for farmers transitioning to regenerative practices (BCG)

This range indicates the financial viability and potential gains once farmers fully integrate regenerative practices into their operations.

6. Regenerative agriculture can result in long-term profits up to 120% higher than those of farmers using conventional practices (Cultivating farmer prosperity)

Regenerative agriculture practices have the potential to significantly increase a farmer’s profitability. Over time, as the ecological benefits of these practices enhance soil health and biodiversity, farmers can experience profit margins that are up to 120% above those using conventional methods.

7. The Ecdysis Foundation found a 78% increase in long-term profits over conventional methods – while The Rodale trial showed long-term profit increases of 194% for regenerative organic systems​ (Cultivating farmer prosperity)

Studies such as those by the Ecdysis Foundation and the Rodale Farming Systems Trial highlight the economic benefits of regenerative farming. The Ecdysis Foundation found a 78% increase in long-term profits over conventional methods, despite a lower average yield. The Rodale trial showed even more dramatic long-term profit increases of 194% for regenerative organic systems, without a yield reduction, underscoring the financial viability of regenerative practices when paired with organic farming and associated price premiums

Statistics about soil health:
8. No-till farming and cover crops promote soil health by restoring soil’s organic carbon (World Resources Institute).

These regenerative practices enhance the organic carbon content of the soil, which is crucial for soil structure, fertility, and overall ecosystem health.

9. The soil carbon pool is essential in the global carbon cycle, with potential for re-sequestration (Purdue University).

Agricultural soils are a major carbon storehouse; regenerative practices can potentially reverse historical carbon losses from soil, contributing to climate change mitigation.

Statistics about water management:
10. A “regenerated” clay soil with the same texture but better structure might improve water retainment up to 150% more which means more water ends up in the soil and/or passing through to groundwater (Frontiers).

By improving soil health, regenerative agriculture helps maintain adequate soil moisture for crops and reduces water runoff, leading to more efficient water use.

11. Healthier soils retain more rainfall, reducing the need for irrigation (Frontiers).

When soil is rich in organic matter and well-structured, it can hold more water, decreasing reliance on irrigation and conserving water resources.

12. Soil infiltration rates are critical, with regenerated soils allowing for higher rates of water penetration (Frontiers).

Enhanced soil structure from regenerative practices allows for better water infiltration, which can reduce erosion and improve groundwater recharge.

Statistics about climate change mitigation:
13. The global food system is responsible for ~21–37% of annual emissions (NASA).

The agricultural sector’s emissions are a notable part of the global greenhouse gas emissions profile, and targeted reductions could have a substantial impact on global warming.

RegenX - regenerative agriculture statistics

14. Anthropogenic climate change is caused by multiple pollutants, with CO2, CH4, and N2O being the largest contributors (Frontiers).

These gases, emitted in significant quantities by agriculture, are key targets for reduction strategies within the sector.

15. In the Indian rice value chain, 50-65% of emissions occurred during the Supply/Production stage, including seed supply, fertilizer use, and paddy flooding. Post-Harvest Processing accounted for another 10-25%, while Distribution and Consumption were responsible for 20-25% of emissions​. (The Asia Food Challenge)

The statistics show that the majority of emissions in the rice value chain in India occur during the initial stages of production, like the use of fertilizers and flooding of rice paddies, which contribute to 50-65% of the emissions. The post-harvest processing and distribution and consumption stages contribute to the remainder. This data can help target interventions to reduce emissions at the stages where they are highest

16. At least two-thirds of emissions in Asia’s agri-food value chain occur before the produce leaves the farm. (The Asia Food Challenge)

This indicates that the majority of greenhouse gas emissions in Asia’s agricultural sector are generated during the early stages of food production, such as cultivation and harvesting.

17. Agri-food contributes to approximately 34% of all carbon dioxide equivalent emissions globally (15.9 Gt CO2e). (The Asia Food Challenge)

This statistic highlights the significant impact of agricultural and food production activities on global carbon emissions, accounting for over a third of the total.

18. In Asia, agri-food is responsible for around 26% of all emissions, and Asia is responsible for approximately 42% of all global agri-food emissions. (The Asia Food Challenge)

Asia plays a major role in global agri-food emissions, both in terms of its share within the region and its contribution to the world’s total agri-food emissions.

✨ Extra reading: Exploring Sustainable Agriculture Examples Around the Globe 🌏

Statistics about carbon sequestration:
19. No-till and conservation tillage on U.S. cropland sequester 52 million MT of carbon per year (Purdue University).

These practices lock away carbon in the soil, contributing to reduced atmospheric CO2 levels.

RegenX - regenerative agriculture statistics

20. Planting cover crops on all U.S. cropland could sequester 147 million MT of carbon per year (Purdue University).

This represents a significant potential for cover crops to impact carbon sequestration on a national scale.

21. Cover crops have a carbon sequestration potential ranging from 0.04 to 0.4 MT/acre/year (Purdue University).

The range indicates that the effectiveness of cover crops for carbon sequestration can vary widely based on agronomic and environmental conditions.

22. Implementing available technologies and practices in the agri-food sector can potentially reduce CO2 emissions in the Asian agri-food sector by approximately 12% by 2030. (The Asia Food Challenge)

Adopting modern agricultural technologies and practices can significantly lower carbon emissions in Asia’s agricultural sector within the next decade.

Statistics about crop yields and food security:
23. Improvements in soil-water holding capacity from regenerative practices capture more rainfall, reducing irrigation needs (Frontiers).

This leads to more sustainable crop production and can help buffer against droughts, contributing to food security.

24. Cover crops contribute to carbon sequestration effectiveness, which can enhance soil fertility and potentially lead to increased crop yields (Purdue University)

The addition of biomass from cover crops improves soil conditions, which is beneficial for crop production and food security.

Statistics about investment, adoption and growth:
25. 63% of farms in North America have adopted regenerative practices (Gitnux).

This widespread adoption highlights the growing recognition of regenerative agriculture’s benefits among farmers.

26. Since 2018, 25% of produce sold in the USA is organic (Gitnux).

The market for organic and by extension regeneratively farmed produce is significant and growing, reflecting consumer demand for sustainable products.

27. The regenerative agriculture market is predicted to reach 333.18 million USD in 2027 (Gitnux).

RegenX - regenerative agriculture statistics

This forecasted market growth indicates a strong trend towards regenerative agriculture practices and reflects increasing investment and consumer interest in sustainable agriculture.

28. A decade-long (2012-2022) overview of global early-stage agri-food technology investment by the supply chain stage showed a fluctuating trend in the USD billions of investments and the percentage of total investments, with a significant portion being upstream (e.g., 62%, 60%, 59%, etc.)​ (The Asia Food Challenge)

Over a period from 2012 to 2022, there has been a considerable investment in agri-food technology, particularly in the early stages. The percentages like 62%, 60%, and 59% represent the proportion of total investments that were allocated upstream in the supply chain, indicating a focus on the initial stages of food production, which includes activities like research and development in biotechnology, which can have long-term sustainability benefits​

Foster a brighter future with data-driven decisions
With the above evidence, regenerative agriculture is not just a hopeful experiment, but a robust path forward. The statistics we’ve unearthed tell a compelling story of a future where farming has to combine tradition with innovation.

With improved soil health, significant carbon sequestration, water conservation, and a substantial increase in profitability, this approach doesn’t just benefit the environment; it makes economic sense.

By making choices today that are good for the earth, we are fostering a better and sustainable future for generations.

Latest articles
RegenX - net zero carbon
The Road to Net Zero Carbon Emissions: Strategies and Challenges
Rachel Nguyen  28 May 2024
The global scientific community agrees that to avoid severe climate impacts, human-caused carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions must decrease by approximately

Read More »
RegenX - coffee supply chain
Innovations in the Coffee Supply Chain
Rachel Nguyen  28 May 2024
The environmental impact of coffee, a global staple, is profound yet often overlooked. Each step of the coffee supply chain

Read More »
Want to get involved in Regen Ag?
Contact us
RegenX logo white
RegenX Impact Pte Ltd 1 Nanson Road, Singapore, 238909
Linkedin
 Facebook-f
 Instagram
About
Home
About us
Resources
Blog
Contact Us
Others
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Resources
Coming soon

RegenX Impact Pte Ltd © All rights reserved
Join us
Sign in


Search
Centres
Publications
Events
Forum Agenda
Intelligence
Videos
Podcasts
About us
UpLink








Fourth Industrial Revolution
Farms of the future: How can AI accelerate regenerative agriculture?
Sep 10, 2024
AI has the potential to accelerate regenerative agriculture.
AI has the potential to accelerate regenerative agriculture.

Image: Getty Images.

Jaskiran Warrik
Lead, Regenerative and Climate Adaptive Projects, Food and Water, World Economic Forum
Shreejit Borthakur
Lead, Agritech, Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, World Economic Forum
Share:
Our Impact
What's the World Economic Forum doing to accelerate action on Fourth Industrial Revolution?
A hand holding a looking glass by a lake
Crowdsource Innovation
Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale
This article is part of:
Centre for Nature and Climate and Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Regenerative agriculture offers a way to ensure food security and help combat climate change.
Developments in AI can help accelerate the transition to regenerative agriculture.
We outline how emerging technology can be harnessed and scaled in low and middle-income countries.
There has been a growing focus on regeneration over the last few years. Mitigation is no longer enough.

In 2019, a survey illustrated that 80% of US consumers prefer “regenerative” over “sustainable” brands. Regenerative is synonymous with renewal – it goes beyond “doing no harm” to “harm reversal”, a critical theme when discussing the environment. While this is a multisectoral trend, regeneration is critical for agri-food systems. For instance, 34% of global agricultural land is degraded and will steadily become infertile to the point that we will not be able to grow food, fibre or feed on it.

Have you read?
From predicting heatwaves to developing climate-resilient seeds: Here’s how agritech can help farmers
12 climate-smart technologies that could transform the way we grow food
The agriculture sector is also responsible for 72% of all freshwater withdrawals, a critical resource currently under threat. The industry contributes significantly to climate change: 21% to 37% of global anthropogenic emissions can be attributed to food systems. With such challenges on hand, sector actors need to focus on regenerating agriculture and food systems, especially to feed approximately 10 billion people by 2050.

Regenerative agriculture: for future food security and resilient food systems
Regenerative agriculture is centred on building resilient food systems by restoring soil health and enhancing natural resources such as water tables and on-farm biodiversity. Prioritizing soil regeneration ensures long-term sustainability and improves crop yields through healthier, more water-retentive soils. Additionally, regenerative agriculture can reduce agricultural emissions by optimizing input use. At the farm level, it strengthens resilience, making farms better equipped to withstand environmental challenges and, ultimately, leading to more stable incomes.

Understanding the role of digital and AI in agriculture
Slightly preceding the global momentum towards regenerative agriculture has been a focus on the digitalization of agriculture. It offers benefits like higher farm incomes, improved environmental outcomes, and better commercial viability when working with smallholder farmers. Research suggests that digital agriculture could boost the agricultural GDP of low- and middle-income countries by more than $450 billion, or 28% per annum. The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in agriculture has further amplified these benefits for farmers. For example, leveraging AI and digital tech, the World Economic Forum's AI for Agriculture Innovation initiative in collaboration with Government of Telangana, India supported chilli farmers achieve a 21% increase in yields, a 9% reduction in pesticide use, and an $800 income boost per acre per cycle.

Figure 1: AI use cases for Agriculture as mapped by the Forum’s Artificial Intelligence for Agriculture Innovation Program.
Figure 1: AI use cases for Agriculture as mapped by the Forum’s Artificial Intelligence for Agriculture Innovation Program.
Overlaying regenerative agriculture and AI: promising use cases
Many of the use cases of AI in agriculture have the potential to accelerate regenerative agriculture. We highlight five such promising use cases.

1. Geospatial imagery for landscape-level planning
Scaling regenerative agriculture often requires a landscape approach, focusing on the broader production area rather than individual farms. This allows for holistic management/regeneration of natural resources. AI models using geospatial data can analyze land-cover-land-use change, soil health, and water availability across large land patches, aiding the planning of regenerative landscapes. In Madhya Pradesh, the Forum’s Food Innovation Hub, in partnership with the state government, is working with Skymet Weather to integrate geospatial imagery into landscape planning. Data collected will further be linked with financial instruments to better support farmers in adopting sustainable practices.

2. AI enabled digital extension
Regenerative agriculture relies on tailored practices developed by research universities. Delivering these practices through extension agents is costly, and a low agent-to-farmer ratio leaves several farmers unserved. Technology advancements have improved the economics of disseminating such practices through digital channels. Additionally, large language models (LLMs) combined with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) models can make advice specific to farms based on localized data. Furthermore, AI-enabled language translations can enable delivery in local languages in a cost-effective manner, making them more accessible across regions.

Discover
How is the World Economic Forum helping farmers with technology?





3. Pest prediction for reduced pesticide use
The use of pesticides has been quoted as a “global human rights concern,” and regenerative agriculture programmes attempt to reduce pesticide use gradually. AI solutions based on image recognition and hyperspectral imagery can enable both predictive and preemptive pest detection, optimizing pesticide use.

4. AI-enabled financial incentives
A barrier to regenerative agriculture is the lack of financial incentives to make the shift. Financial incentives such as payment for carbon sequestered is complex owing to the high costs of monitoring and making payouts. However, recent pilots using sensors for soil health measurement and AI-enabled smart contracts have made payments faster, error-free, and cost-effective. Most carbon finance companies use geospatial data-enabled AI models to measure carbon sequestration remotely. Similar innovative models for incentivizing the transition are being used in the 100 Million Farmers Initiative. The initiative provides a mix of financial and non-financial support to transition towards regenerative agriculture. Through AI, it enables rewarding both farmers and early investors. Blueprints for replicating such financial models are available through the initiative.

5. Rapid soil tests and programme monitoring
AI-enabled soil testing provides rapid assessments of soil health, enabling precise decisions on the effectiveness of regenerative practices. Additionally, geospatial AI models can be used to monitor practices like intercropping or cover cropping, which are generally difficult to monitor at scale. Such analysis can also enable farmer segmentation, enabling the delivery of customized support to farmers at different levels of adoption.


Scaling AI for regenerative agriculture
There are several challenges today that would need to be addressed to ensure that AI indeed facilitates climate action. Steps towards these include:

Reducing AI’s carbon footprint: The growing demand for AI is driving up electricity use, leading to increased emissions from tech companies. Reducing these emissions is crucial, and options that support reduction, such as renewable energy and better data management, should be explored.
Optimizing data infrastructure and framework: High-quality data is crucial for effective AI models, but agricultural data is often fragmented. Building digital public infrastructure for data sharing can help reduce costs by enabling organizations to reuse and recycle data. Harmonizing data collection via standards is essential for interoperability and making data use more efficient. Another aspect includes the collection of data on farmer’s practices and corroborate it with other data sets on soil, water etc., to build evidence on practices that work.
Structuring a village-level service delivery network: Farmers may find it difficult to adopt AI-enabled technologies directly without any intermediation. Multistakeholder collaboration is needed to train and deploy village-level agents who can assist with the assisted delivery of AI-enabled services to farmers.
As more agricultural data is accumulated and farmers become conversant with technology, the role of AI in regenerative agriculture will increase. At the same time, with more data, the accuracy of existing solutions will improve. Therefore, to make the most of these advancements, planning for AI while designing regenerative agricultural programmes is critical.

For more information on how AI can help global agricultural development, please get in touch with the Forum’s AI4AI Team.

Contributing author: Abhay Pareek, Lead, AI for Agriculture Innovation, Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Accept our marketing cookies to access this content.

These cookies are currently disabled in your browser.


Don't miss any update on this topic
Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:
Share:
World Economic Forum logo
Global Agenda
The Agenda Weekly
A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

You can unsubscribe at any time using the link in our emails.
For more details, review our privacy policy.

More on Fourth Industrial Revolution
See all

How industries are leveraging industrial intelligence to achieve more with less

Caspar Herzberg

October 1, 2024


How closing South Asia’s digital gender divide could unleash billions

Kelly Ommundsen

September 26, 2024


It took nearly 4 years to connect a billion people to vital digital services – we must redouble our efforts as the world enters the age of AI

Klaus Schwab

September 25, 2024




Accelerating the Global Transition to a Bio-based Economy: The Strategic Role of Policy

Sep 25, 2024

About 2.5 billion people lack internet access: How connectivity can unlock their potential

Heather Johnson

September 25, 2024


The Intelligent Age: A time for cooperation

Klaus Schwab

September 24, 2024

About us

Our mission
Our Institutional Framework
History
Leadership and governance
Our Impact
More from the Forum

Centres
Meetings
Stakeholders
Forum stories
Press releases
Picture gallery
Engage with us

Partner with us
Become a member
Sign up for our press releases
Subscribe to our newsletters
Contact us
Quick links

Sustainability at the Forum
Careers
Language editions

EN
▪
ES
▪
中文
▪
日本語
Privacy Policy & Terms of Service

Sitemap

© 2024 World Economic Forum

EN
ES
中文
日本語
Grand View Research Logo
Reports 
Services 
About Us 
Insights 
Search...
Login 
Home»Next Generation Technologies»
Regenerative Agriculture Market Size & Share Report, 2030
GVR Report coverRegenerative Agriculture Market Size, Share & Trends Report
Regenerative Agriculture Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Agriculture Type (Agroforestry, Biochar), By End-user (Farmers, Service Organization), By Component (Solutions, Services), By Region, And Segment Forecasts, 2023 - 2030
Report ID: GVR-4-68040-062-9Number of Report Pages: 91Format: PDF, Horizon Databook
Historical Range: 2017 - 2021Forecast Period: 2023 - 2030 Industry: Technology
Report SummaryTable of ContentsSegmentationMethodologyRequest a FREE Sample Copy
Market Size & Trends
The global regenerative agriculture market size was estimated at USD 924.0 million in 2022 and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.7% from 2023 to 2030. The rise in support from governments, organizations, and farmer welfare associations drives market growth. Regenerative agriculture is an approach to farming that focuses on enhancing and improving soil health, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and community well-being. It is gaining popularity worldwide as a sustainable alternative to conventional farming practices that often rely on synthetic inputs and heavy tillage. Governments worldwide recognize the importance of this market in mitigating climate change, enhancing soil health, and improving food security. They provide incentives, subsidies, and support programs encouraging farmers to adopt regenerative farming practices. For example, in the U.S., the Department of Agriculture has launched several initiatives to promote this market, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Stewardship Program, and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. In recent years, regenerative agriculture has gained traction among farmers as they recognize its benefits.

U.S. Regenerative Agriculture market size and growth rate, 2023 - 2030
To learn more about this report, request a free sample copy

Farmers can reduce their input costs, improve soil health, and increase yields over time by implementing regenerative practices. In addition, it can help mitigate the impacts of climate change by sequestering carbon in the soil. Governments are also providing incentives to farmers that adopt such practices. In the U.S., for example, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides financial assistance to farmers who implement conservation practices on their land, including regenerative agriculture practices. Similarly, the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) includes provisions for supporting farmers who adopt agroecological and regenerative practices.

Furthermore, the benefits of these practices are not limited to the farm level. Healthy soil and diverse ecosystems can help improve water quality, reduce erosion, and support wildlife habitats. Therefore, governments and other stakeholders recognize regenerative agriculture’s potential to contribute to broader sustainability goals beyond just farming. There has been a growing awareness among consumers about the importance of regenerative practices. This has led to a shift in consumer preferences towards food products produced using these practices. Consumers are looking for food that is not only healthy and nutritious but also produced in a way that is environmentally sustainable and supports local communities.

As a result, many food companies are now marketing their products as being produced using regenerative practices. In November 2022, Microsoft teamed up with the International Finance Corporation (IFC) to facilitate the digital transformation of Africa's agriculture industry. This endeavor offers a range of digital tools designed to enhance productivity, promote climate-friendly farming practices, and impart knowledge on "farming as a business." The partnership is equipping smallholder farmers with access to extension and advisory services by utilizing Microsoft's AgBot agritech chatbot, which communicates through SMS, WhatsApp, and Telegram on feature phones and smartphones. These solutions aim to improve the supply chain's efficiency and capacity for African agribusinesses.

Report Coverage & Deliverables
PDF report & online dashboard will help you understand:
Competitive benchmarking
Historical data & forecasts
Company revenue shares
Regional opportunities
Latest trends & dynamics
View Data On Platform
The Grand Library - BI Enabled Market Research Database
Explore Sample Data
COVID-19 Impact on the Regenerative Agriculture Market
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted various industries, including the regenerative agriculture market. While the pandemic has negatively impacted some aspects of this market, other areas have seen growth. One of the significant impacts of COVID-19 on this market has been disruptions in supply chains. The pandemic caused significant transportation and logistics disruptions, making getting products to market more difficult. In addition, many farmers faced labor shortages, as workers were unable or unwilling to travel due to restrictions and health concerns. On the other hand, the increased consumer interest in sustainable and locally sourced food has increased the demand for regenerative agriculture.

As people have become more aware of the impact of their food choices on the environment and their health, they have become increasingly interested in regenerative farming practices. This increased awareness and interest in sustainable and locally sourced food has increased the demand for regenerative products, particularly in local and direct-to-consumer markets. Consumers are now more willing to pay a premium for food that is produced in a way that supports the environment, animal welfare, and the health of farmers and communities. In addition, the pandemic had disrupted global supply chains, making locally sourced food more attractive as it is perceived to be more resilient and reliable.

Component Insights
In terms of components, the market is classified into solutions and services. The solutions segment dominated the overall industry and accounted for a revenue share of 63.56% in 2022. The segment is estimated to witness a CAGR of 15.4% during the forecast period. The solutions component of the market refers to the various products and services available to support these practices. These solutions range from soil amendments and fertilizers to precision agriculture technologies and sustainable farming practices. Some examples of solutions that support the market include:

Cover crops: Cover crops are grown specifically to improve soil health and fertility. They can help reduce soil erosion, suppress weeds, and enhance soil structure and nutrient cycling

Biological inputs: Biological inputs, such as beneficial microbes, fungi, and other organisms, can be used to improve soil health and plant growth. These inputs can help enhance nutrient uptake, reduce disease pressure, and promote soil biodiversity

The services segment is anticipated to observe the fastest growth rate of 16.1% over the forecast period. The services component refers to the various support services required to implement and maintain sustainable agriculture practices. The components include various activities, such as soil testing, crop planning, pest & disease management, water management, and wildlife habitat restoration. These services are typically provided by agricultural consultants, soil scientists, ecologists, and other experts in the field. One of the key services in the market is soil testing. This involves analyzing the chemical and physical properties of the soil to determine its health and fertility. Soil testing helps farmers understand their crops’ specific nutrient requirements and allows them to apply fertilizers and other soil amendments more effectively.

Agriculture Type Insights
In terms of agriculture type, the market is classified into agroforestry, silvopasture, aquaculture/ocean farming, no-till & pasture cropping, holistically managed grazing, biochar, and others. The agroforestry segment dominated the market in 2022 with a revenue share of 19.55% and is projected to witness a CAGR of 16.0% during the forecast period. Agroforestry is an important practice in this market that integrates trees, crops, and livestock into a single farming system. This approach has gained popularity in recent years as a way to improve soil health, increase biodiversity, and enhance the overall sustainability of agricultural production.

In regenerative agriculture, agroforestry is seen as a key strategy for promoting sustainable and profitable farming practices. Farmers can provide additional benefits, such as shade, windbreaks, and erosion control by integrating trees into the farming system. In addition, tree roots help improve soil structure and increase water infiltration, leading to better soil health and increased productivity. The aquaculture/ocean farming segment is anticipated to grow at a considerable CAGR of 16.6% during the forecast period. Aquaculture, or ocean farming, can play a significant role in the market.

Aquaculture involves farming fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms in controlled environments, such as ponds, tanks, and cages. When done correctly, aquaculture can help reduce overfishing in wild fisheries, provide a reliable source of protein, and reduce the environmental impact of traditional fishing practices. In regenerative agriculture, aquaculture can help improve soil health and nutrient cycling by providing a source of organic fertilizer. Fish waste can be used as a natural fertilizer for crops, improving soil health and reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers.

End-User Insights
In terms of end-user, the market is classified into farmers, service organizations, financial institutions, advisory bodies, and consumer packaged goods manufacturers. The service organization segment dominated the overall market with a revenue share of 25.66% in 2022 and is estimated to witness a CAGR of 15.2% during the forecast period. In the service organization end-user segment of the regenerative agriculture market, there are various types of companies that provide services to farmers and landowners who want to transition to regenerative agriculture practices. These service organizations may include:

Consulting firms: Consulting firms provide advice and expertise on regenerative agriculture practices, including soil health, crop rotations, and livestock management

Education and training providers: These organizations offer training and educational programs for farmers and landowners to learn about regenerative agriculture practices and how to implement them

Certification and verification organizations: These organizations provide third-party verification and certification services to ensure that farmers are following regenerative agriculture practices

Agtech companies: These companies provide technology solutions that can help farmers monitor soil health, crop growth, and other aspects of their farming operations to optimize their regenerative agriculture practices

The farmer segment is anticipated to witness the fastest CAGR of 16.8% over the forecast period. Farmers are the primary end-users of regenerative agriculture practices, as they are the ones responsible for implementing the techniques and managing their farms. They play a critical role in the success of regenerative agriculture because they are the ones who must adapt their practices to ensure that they are regenerative. Adopting such practices requires a shift in mindset and a willingness to experiment with new techniques.

Global Regenerative Agriculture Market share and size, 2022
To learn more about this report, request a free sample copy

It involves changing traditional practices and embracing new methods that prioritize soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Farmers who adopt these practices may need to make changes to their crop rotations, cover cropping, grazing practices, and use of inputs like fertilizers and pesticides.

Regional Insights
North America led the overall market in 2022 with a revenue share of 36.31%. Regenerative agriculture is a growing movement in North America, aimed at improving soil health, biodiversity, and overall sustainability of agricultural practices. One indicator of the growth of regenerative agriculture in North America is the increase in certification programs and labels that indicate adherence to regenerative principles. Another sign of the growth of regenerative agriculture is the increasing number of companies and investors focusing on regenerative practices. Major food companies, such as General Mills and Danone, have made commitments to regenerative agriculture, and there are a growing number of investment funds dedicated to supporting regenerative agriculture practices.

In May 2022, the collaboration of Axa, Tikehau Capital, and Unilever resulted in the introduction of a new fund for regenerative agriculture. This move demonstrates a growing focus on a sector that has the potential to effectively address both land degradation and climate change issues. Europe is anticipated to witness the fastest growth CAGR of 16.3% over the forecast period. Regenerative agriculture is gaining momentum in Europe as a sustainable approach to farming that prioritizes soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem services.

Regenerative Agriculture Market Trends, by Region, 2023 - 2030
To learn more about this report, request a free sample copy

According to a report by the European Commission, the market in Europe is expected to grow significantly in the coming years, with a focus on reducing chemical inputs, increasing carbon sequestration, and promoting the use of cover crops, crop rotations, and agroforestry. Several European countries, including France, Germany, and Spain, have already launched initiatives to promote regenerative agriculture practices, such as offering financial incentives and technical support for farmers to transition to more sustainable practices. The European Union’s CAP has also recently undergone reform to prioritize environmental sustainability, including support for agroecology and organic farming.

Key Companies & Market Share Insights
The market is fragmented and is anticipated to witness competition due to the strong presence of several players. Major service providers are constantly upgrading their technologies to stay ahead of the competition and to ensure efficiency, integrity, and safety. Key players focus on partnerships, product upgrades, and collaborations to gain a competitive edge over their peers and capture a significant market share. In April 2023, Nestlé and Cargill joined forces with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) to promote conservation. They have pledged a total of USD 15 million, which will be matched by federal funding, resulting in a total grant funding of USD 30 million for farmers. The collaborative effort aims to promote the adoption of conservation practices voluntarily. The trio is looking for private landowners and conservation groups who can aid in improving land and water management while restoring wildlife habitats. Some of the key players in the global regenerative agriculture market are:

Vayda

Terramera Inc.

Agreed.Earth

Biotrex

Ecorobotix SA

Ruumi

Continuum Ag

Aker Technologies, Inc.

Indigo Ag, Inc.

Tortuga Agricultural Technologies, Inc.

Astanor Ventures

SATELLIGENCE

Regenerative Agriculture Market Report Scope
Report Attribute

Details

Market size value in 2022

USD 1,045.21 million

Revenue forecast in 2030

USD 2,900.2 million

Growth rate

CAGR of 15.7% from 2023 to 2030

Historical year

2017 - 2021

Base year for estimation

2022

Forecast period

2023 - 2030

Quantitative units

Revenue in USD million and CAGR from 2023 to 2030

Report coverage

Revenue forecast, company ranking, competitive landscape, growth factors, and trends

Segments covered

Component, agriculture type, end-user, region

Regional scope

North America; Europe; Asia Pacific; Latin America; Middle East & Africa

Country scope

U.S.; Canada; Germany; UK; France; China; India; Japan; Australia; South Korea; Mexico; Brazil; K.S.A.; U.A.E.; South Africa

Key companies profiled

Vayda; Terramera Inc.; Agreed.Earth; Biotrex; Ecorobotix SA; Ruumi; Continuum Ag; Aker Technologies, Inc.; Indigo Ag, Inc.; Tortuga Agricultural Technologies, Inc.; Astanor Ventures; SATELLIGENCE

Customization scope

Free report customization (equivalent up to 8 analysts working days) with purchase. Addition or alteration to country, regional & segment scope.

Pricing and purchase options

Avail customized purchase options to meet your exact research needs. Explore purchase options

 

Global Regenerative Agriculture Market Segmentation
This report forecasts revenue growth and provides an analysis of the latest trends in each of the sub-segments from 2017 to 2030. For this report, Grand View Research has segmented the the global regenerative agriculture market based on component, agriculture type, end-user, and region:

Global Regenerative Agriculture Market Report Segmentation
To learn more about this report, request a free sample copy

Component Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2017 - 2030)

Solutions

Services

Agriculture Type Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2017 - 2030)

Agroforestry

Silvopasture

Aquaculture/Ocean Farming

No-Till and Pasture Cropping

Holistically Managed Grazing

Biochar

Others

End-User Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2017 - 2030)

Farmers

Service Organization

Financial Institutions

Advisory Bodies

Consumer Packaged Goods Manufacturers

Regional Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2017 - 2030)

North America

U.S.

Canada

Europe

Germany

UK

France

Asia Pacific

China

India

Japan

Australia

South Korea

Latin America

Brazil

Mexico

Middle East & Africa

K.S.A

U.A.E.

South Africa

Frequently Asked Questions About This Report
How big is the regenerative agriculture market?
What is the regenerative agriculture market growth?
Which segment accounted for the largest regenerative agriculture market share?
Who are the key players in the regenerative agriculture market?
What are the factors driving the regenerative agriculture market?
Key questions answered by the reportRequest a Free Sample

Share
E-mail
Save
Print
Jump to content
Size, Share & Trends
COVID-19 Impact on the Regenerative Agriculture Market
Component Insights
Agriculture Type Insights
End-User Insights
Regional Insights
Company Insights
Report Segmentation
pdf icn
GET A FREE SAMPLE

arrow icn
This FREE sample includes data points, ranging from trend analyses to estimates and forecasts. See for yourself.

Or view our licence options:

gvr icn
NEED A CUSTOM REPORT?

We can customize every report - free of charge - including purchasing stand-alone sections or country-level reports, as well as offer affordable discounts for start-ups & universities. Contact us now

Certified Icon
We are GDPR and CCPA compliant! Your transaction & personal information is safe and secure. For more details, please read our privacy policy.

We are committed towards customer satisfaction, and quality service.
Client Testimonials
"The quality of research they have done for us has been excellent."Brian Moore, VP, NICCA USA, Inc.
testimonialsMore  
ISO Certified
ISO
Privacy & Security Compliance
trustwave Validate
Click to Validate
 
Payment & Banking Partners
 authorize.net
Follow us
facebook icontwitter iconlinkedin icon
Company
Customer FAQ
How To Order
Privacy Policy
Terms Of Use
Sitemap
Office Address
Grand View Research is registered in the State of California at Grand View Research, Inc. 201 Spear Street 1100, San Francisco, CA 94105, United States

<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-888-202-9519

<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Business Hours
Our support available to help you 24 hours a day, five days a week.

Monday-Thursday :9am to 5pm
Fridays:9am to 4:30pm
Saturday & Sunday:Closed
Copyright © 2024 Grand View Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

these are data about regenerative agriculture. please write a highly insightful wrap up for my newsletter. add high, lows and growth calculation or any relevant calulation. It is critical that you insert figures..and make one bullet point for each continent. please highlights top countries and top years in a highly positive and optimist tones. Start by the most important continent.also find a catchy title