The Financing Soil Wealth calculator was created to assist farmers, lenders, and investors in determining profitable approaches to transitioning to regenerative organic farming for cropland.
Over the last five years, regenerative agriculture has become increasingly popular as an alternative to conventional agricultural systems as the public and industry have become more focused on reducing the harmful environmental and climate impacts of our food system. Regenerative agriculture is a holistic approach to agricultural systems that work with natural processes to restore, improve and enhance farming landscapes. While the conservation1 and carbon mitigation benefits2 of regenerative agriculture have been well-documented, little is understood about the short- and long-term financial dynamics associated with regenerative practices.
Transitioning from conventional to regenerative agricultural systems can be considered risky for many farmers due to the considerable time, effort, and expenses associated with the transition process. However, many farmers and investors are looking for innovative ways to reduce costs and improve both short- and long-term productivity and profitability. Regenerative agriculture has emerged as an attractive opportunity for farmers to realize improvements in their bottom line and quality of life. Transitioning to regenerative practices requires not just a philosophical shift, but also investments of time and capital; notably, eliminating or reducing reliance on synthetic chemical inputs and intensive tillage and upgrading to new infrastructure or labor models to accommodate these changes. The significant effort, farmer knowledge gaps, changes in expectations of farm-system performance, and the financial risks during the transition period can deter farmers and investors from adopting regenerative practices. These changes are to be expected as farms shift from being managed under a chemical paradigm to a biological one. There are also a number of tools, many of which are detailed in Soil Wealth: Investing in Regenerative Agriculture across Asset Classes3 to facilitate the transition to these systems that confer a range of ecological, economic, and social benefits.
With careful and thoughtful planning, farms can be significantly more profitable under regenerative management. The Soil Wealth Financial Calculator was created through a collaboration of Encourage Capital, Rodale Institute, Delta Institute and Croatan Institute to model the financial outcomes associated with farms under different management scenarios with a focus on farms transitioning to or adopting regenerative agricultural practices4.
“Soil Wealth” is a term of art for the constellation of benefits associated with building soil health and community wealth through regenerative agriculture. One of the most significant benefits associated with regenerative agriculture is the improvement of soil health, which strengthens the biological activity within the soil, increases crop yields and reduces the need for additional inputs to manage pests, weeds and diseases. Higher quality soils are also associated with improved water quality and water holding capacity which reduces irrigation needs and helps farms fare better during droughts or other extreme weather events.
The Calculator demonstrates the financial benefits of regenerative agriculture by modeling income and earnings for farms under three management scenarios: **Conventional, **which assumes use of commercial chemical inputs and heavy tillage; Regenerative Transition, which begins with conventional management in the first year then assumes a typical three-year transition to organic management; and Regenerative Organic, which pairs an organic budget with additional soil health improvements. By comparing these three management scenarios in different geographies, crop rotations and drought conditions, the Calculator estimates the earnings associated with the different management scenarios and reduces the uncertainty that may accompany new investment and farming approaches required by regenerative agriculture.
The Calculator is a reference point that uses real data from farms in different geographies to demonstrate the financial benefits of informed planning and management of a regenerative transition. The Calculator is customizable and includes options to model various scenarios based on acreage, crop rotations, ownership and debt, and dozens of other input variables. Users can choose to model regenerative transition scenarios in two U.S. geographies - Northeast and Midwest - using place-specific price/cost data for each. This model can also be easily adapted to other geographies or cropping rotations.
The key factor in the earnings under the Regenerative Transition and Regenerative scenarios is the added resiliency associated with improved soil health. “Resiliency” is difficult to measure, as it can appear in many different contexts in a farming landscape. Resiliency can refer to environmental improvements, such as clean water and improved wildlife habitats; benefits to community and society, such as expanded availability of fresh, nutrient-dense food; and operations efficiencies, such as requiring fewer labor or mechanical inputs and resulting in higher yields. This _added resiliency factor in leads to higher incomes and reduces costs that are _compounded on regenerative farming operations year after year, ultimately leading to these farms realizing their full potential as profitable businesses and responsible stewards. While the Financial Calculator focuses on these monetary savings associated with environmental benefits and operational efficiencies, there are many other benefits that can and should be considered by those interested in transition but without sufficient financial data are unable to be represented in the Calculator.
“Regenerative agriculture” broadly refers to more holistic approaches in agricultural systems that work with natural systems to improve and enhance the quality of environmental services.5 Drawing upon a wide range of traditions and techniques including organic, agroecological, biodynamic, and permacultural farming systems; as well as actively managed, rotational livestock grazing across perennial pastures and silviculture landscapes; regenerative farmers and practitioners use strategies that aim to deepen soil carbon, improve soil health and fertility, infiltrate more water, and increase biodiversity. Practices vary widely but tend to focus on techniques that minimize soil disturbance; maintain four-season soil coverage using cover crops and diversified crop rotation; and enhance soil quality with compost and natural soil amendments rather than synthetic chemical fertilizers, sprays, and inputs. Depending on what farmers are producing and the scale of their operations, they may focus on minimally or no-tilled row crops, vegetables, agroforestry, multi-paddock managed grazing, or silvopasture. For those integrating livestock into their operations, animal welfare and holistic husbandry are critical components for regenerative agriculture systems.
The term “regenerative organic” was first coined by Robert Rodale, son of J.I. Rodale of the Rodale Institute, and has been subsequently developed into its own certification standard by the Institute.6 Generally, when we mention regenerative and organic systems in this report, we are not referring to the official Rodale Organic Certification (ROC) standard, but rather the practices associated with these frameworks. This includes practices that prioritize soil health (i.e. reduced tillage, rotagrazing), no synthetic or chemical inputs, and maintaining high animal and worker welfare standards.
While there is not currently a strong commercial market or price premium for foods that are labeled “regenerative” alone, incorporating organic practices into a regenerative system (“regenerative organic”) can lead to higher revenues. Each farm is different and farmers adopt practices that are appropriate to their geography, scale, economic ambitions and more. Not all organic operations are regenerative (i.e., no synthetic inputs but practice heavy tillage), just as not all regenerative operations are organic (i.e., use cover crops but also use non-organic sprays).
**We see the greatest potential for farmers to achieve the highest financial, environmental, and social benefits when they adopt regenerative and organic practices. **The Calculator’s Regenerative scenario reflects _regenerative organic _management and practices using organic prices and regenerative expenses in its data calculations. It is also possible to model a regenerative non-organic farm by setting the Transition Years option in the Assumptions tab to a longer time period. During these Transition Years, the Calculator will use regenerative expenses but conventional prices, which results in smaller profits because it does not capture the higher organic prices.
These regenerative organic practices position growers in organic markets that command higher price points. Organic food markets have grown considerably in the last two decades, with sales reaching $47.9 billion in 2018, up 5.9 percent from the previous year. This demand is reflected in current prices for organic corn, soy and other commodity crops as the overall organic premium for commodity grains has increased to 2.5 times the conventional price as of 2016.7
It makes sense that farmers want to capture these price premiums. The issue that many face, however, is a lack of capital to finance the transitional phase required for USDA Organic Certification. In order to encourage adoption of regenerative farming practices that go beyond regulated organic requirements, farmers need ready access to capital and additional information to mitigate even greater perceived risks. The ability to plan for and model a transition plan is critical, as it allows farmers and investors to understand the financial benefits associated with the added resiliency of regenerative operations including improved crop yields, reduced reliance on fertilizer and other inputs; and the ability to withstand extreme weather events, unexpected crop failures or market shifts.
Adopting or transitioning to these regenerative agriculture practices can be expensive and time consuming. The transition process involves eliminating all chemical and synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides; and replacing them with labor or non-chemical inputs, almost all of which tend to be more expensive than the conventional alternatives. Transition also usually takes place over a period of two to five years, depending on the geography and how the land was used previously. Expenses are usually higher over these years as farms adjust to new management plans, invest in new equipment, adapt reduced-tillage techniques, integrate cover cropping, and learn about perennial or otherwise new crops to integrate into a rotation. These are significant investments that must be anticipated, budgeted for, and implemented with sufficient working capital. The Calculator demonstrates the significant capital that is needed to support farmers through this transition process, ideally deployed across a variety of asset classes to mitigate risk to farmers and investors. It is important to note that during the regenerative transition period, crop yields may go down and farm revenues may suffer over this time. However, when farms are able to anticipate risks, plan for and appropriately finance their transition, they reap the financial benefits of higher revenues, improved soil health and added resiliency associated with regenerative agriculture. The Calculator is designed to be used to model these different financial outcomes to further the adoption of and investment in regenerative agriculture.
The following are central themes that emerged from the research that went into building the Calculator, as well as the trends and results that the Calculator models.
Transitioning to regenerative practices likely means incurring short-term income losses, particularly during the Transition Period, but will lead to higher overall profits over time.
Transitioning to regenerative practices may result in losses during the transition years but results in, on average, 130 percent more in annual earnings than remaining in conventional management.8 These additional profits represent the higher price points associated with entering organic crop markets and the reduced expenses over time associated with better soil and improved yields.
Evaluating the financial outlook of Midwestern row cropping farms, we find that total projected net earnings of Regenerative farming practices over 18 years is about 175 percent higher than earnings under Conventional management. The Regenerative Transition scenario shows similar trends of improved long-term earnings, as net earnings of Regenerative Transition are 147 percent higher than Conventional under these same Midwestern conditions. While the long-term benefits over 18 years are clear, the risks are greater particularly during the transition years.
Under the Transition scenario, operations may experience net losses during Years 2 through 4, when farms are investing in organic inputs, new infrastructure, and modifying systems and practices while receiving conventional market prices. Farms begin earning consistent profits almost immediately after transition. With a row crop rotation that requires less tillage and added inputs (i.e. ), farmers can make significant headway in making up for these losses during transition. For example, for a 500 acre Midwestern farm that brought in approximately $89,000 for its conventional corn crop, the transition period (Years 2-5) will see it losing, on average, $43,000 per year. However, in the three years under regenerative management following transition, farms can net an average of $55,000 per year (including losses from a drought in Year 6). In the three years following that (Years 8 - 10), farms can net nearly $200,000 per year. This is nearly double the annual earnings than if it had stayed in conventional management, which sees annual average earnings peak at around $105,000 during Years 8-10. While losses during the transition period are significant in the short term, the long-term financial benefits are clear.
Significant public and private capital should be deployed to support farmers during the Transition Period.
While the calculator does not estimate the expenses of new investments, there are many additional, higher costs associated with a regenerative transition that farmers must face right away without reaping the benefits of the higher price point.
Farmers will need to shift their purchasing away from synthetic fertilizers and use more context-appropriate seed varieties and other inputs. Organic inputs command a higher price but might also necessitate farmers changing their vendors and purchasing schedules. New equipment may also be needed to accommodate different production methods and labor schedules. This includes not only field crop management, but also drying, storage and trucking expenses as yields may fluctuate under new production methods.
There are two additional expenses required under a regenerative and organic management system that most conventional operations do not incur: cover crops (regenerative) and organic certification (organic). Organic certification fees include the application paperwork and inspection process, and may also include a per-unit fee depending on the crop. Certification fees are generally around $1,000 depending on the size of the operation. The USDA Organic Program usually requires annual certification, although depending on the state, different agencies may administer and collect fees in different ways.
The second added expense for most conventional operations is cover crops including purchasing the seed, dedicating the field space, and labor to manage those crops. The benefits of these added expenses include the higher price premium in organic markets as well as the long-term soil health benefits of cover crops integrated with regenerative farming practices.
Farmers must be able to access readily available capital to finance these additional expenses on their operations during the transition period. Public and private investment focused on expanding regenerative agriculture plays a critical role in getting farmers through this challenging period and also helps expand the market for regenerative practices and the agricultural value chains supporting them.
Many opportunities for investment in regenerative agriculture exist across a range of asset classes. For investors seeking to finance regenerative agriculture through the intermediation of professionally managed investment funds and financial institutions, the opportunity set for gaining fuller investment exposure to regenerative agriculture remains primarily in alternative asset classes, generally available only to accredited investors. Real asset investments in land, private equity investments in companies that support regenerative agricultural value chains, and private debt investments in both farms and firms are currently the leading asset classes giving the fullest expression to regenerative agriculture as an investment theme. While opportunities are growing in conventional asset classes (such as cash, public equities, and fixed-income investing in public markets), they remain far more limited in scope. Overall, we strongly recommend greater blending of private investment with catalytic sources of capital from philanthropy and government at multiple levels.9 For specific recommendations and a detailed report on the state of investment in regenerative agriculture across asset classes, visit www.soilwealth.org.
Under regenerative management, profitability increases over time due to the higher yields, higher price premiums, and a decrease in input expenses. These decreases are largely due to better overall levels of resilience or the ability to weather challenging physical or financial events, including higher soil carbon levels, better drought resistance and higher profit margins. Improved soils with higher organic matter levels will retain water better which decreases the need for irrigation. Soils that hold and cycle nutrients require less fertilizer. Less or no-tillage will also improve soil quality, leading to better and more consistent yields in not just row crops but also cover crops which reduces input seed expenses. These are captured in the Cost Curves tab. The default settings are based on estimated expense decreases across each region, although users can adjust these settings for further exploration or to reflect specific geographic or economic conditions.
The Calculator is designed to help agricultural practitioners and investors understand the long-term economic impacts of transitioning to regenerative farm management. The Executive Summary describes each of the management scenarios based on the various customizable inputs (see next section, Assumptions) including the crop rotations and net income for each management scenario. Net income is further broken down by year and totals over six-year periods and the full 18 years. This data shows when and what crops are profitable based on the management scenario, crop rotation plans, and risk from drought. Charts and visuals automatically update to help further explain these trends. Figure 1 shows how annual net income changes under different management scenarios over the total 18 year crop rotation timeline and Figure 2 shows the cumulative (running total) net incomes. Figures 3, 4 and 5 break down the sum profitability of individual crops under each management scenario.
The Calculator models farm financial outcomes under various management scenarios: Conventional, Transition, and Regenerative Organic.
- Conventional: Assumes use of commercial chemical inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, other sprays or soil treatments) and heavy tillage for the full 18-year rotation.
- **Transition: **While we see the greatest potential for financial and environmental returns by transitioning to a regenerative organic management scenario, we also know that some farms are unable to or choose not to adopt organic practices during their transition. It is possible to model both scenarios, described below:
- Regenerative Organic: Begins with conventional management then assumes a short transition period (typically three-year) to regenerative and organic practices. During the Transition period an organic budget and conventional price premiums are used. After the Transition period, assumes an organic budget and organic price premiums. **This is default Transition scenario. **
- **Regenerative Non-Organic: The Transition Period itself serves as a proxy for a regenerative, non-organic scenario, as the farm incurs regenerative expenses while receiving conventional prices. **This assumes there is no price premium for regenerative (non-organic) crops. To model regenerative practices in a non-organic setting, users can extend the **Transition Period **in the Assumptions tab to a longer or full 18-year Time Period and set an earlier Transition Start Year.
- Regenerative Organic: Assumes an organic budget with regenerative soil health improvements for the full 18-year rotation.
Calculator users can customize many of the inputs to this tool to model farm scenarios with different acreage, soil resilience, ownership, management, crop rotations and production models. These inputs are all set in the Assumptions tab in the highlighted cells.
Once set, the Calculator will automatically update and the updated results will be reflected in the Executive Summary page.
The Calculator is currently designed to work in the Midwest and Northeast geographies. These areas were chosen to be the initial pilot geographies because they are where our organizations’ networks are active, where the majority of our research and programming takes place, and where data were available. We hope to expand the Calculator to other regional geographies in the future with place-specific data, farming practices and other inputs.
Ownership arrangements and lease or purchasing agreements have a significant impact on farm financials not only at the time of sale but in the operating budgets and projections well into the future. We have included this as an input to allow the flexibility for comparing, for example, how a farm with no debt fares in transition compared to a farm owned outright with no or some level of debt. Land Value Per Acre as an input is important for these calculations, as well as Total Acreage and Percentage of Farmable Land. While land value is not currently connected to soil health as a function of regenerative agriculture, aligned efforts are working to connect these topics.10
We see the greatest potential for farmers to achieve the highest financial, environmental, and social benefits when they adopt regenerative and organic practices. The Calculator’s Regenerative scenario reflects _regenerative and organic _management, using regenerative expenses and organic yields and price premiums in its data calculations.
It is also true that not all farms are able to adopt regenerative and organic practices and others may choose not to adopt one system or the other for various reasons. For example, the cost of organic certification or the anticipated yield loss from changing pest control methods may be concerns that disincentivize a farm from participating in the USDA Organic program. If a farm chooses a regenerative but non-organic system, it is still possible to model outcomes with the Calculator by setting the Regenerative Transition section in the Assumptions tab to a longer time period. During these years, the Calculator will use regenerative expenses and conventional prices, resulting in decreased profits as it more accurately reflects the additional inputs and expenses of regenerative practices. To model a regenerative, non-organic farm over the full rotation, set the **Transition Period **(cell H21) to 18 and **Transition Start Year **(cell H22) to 1.
Some regenerative features may take up Farmable lands, such as creating and maintaining wetlands, native plantings for pollinators, wildlife habitat, forest, or fallow land. Conventional management systems typically do not have or have much less of these land uses. In our summary estimates we used 85 percent farmable land as a conversative estimate of crop acreage under management in any given year.
Crop rotation is the practice of planting different crops sequentially on the same plot of land in order to improve soil health. Rotation is a critically important aspect of regenerative farm management. Under regenerative management, you cannot keep growing highly profitable corn year after year - or even every other year - as it extracts nutrients without returning them to the soil and therefore requires the intensive use of fertilizers and pesticides. Since different crops demand and take up different nutrients from the soil, diversified rotations are critical to ensuring that nutrient levels stay balanced over a longer period of time, thereby requiring less fertilizer or amendments for production.
The rotations used in this model were formulated based on recommendations from the Rodale Institute for Northeast and Midwestern row crop farms. While we recommend using the default rotations for each geography, they are adaptable as users explore how different rotations lead to different (more or less profitable) outcomes. _Note: Crop rotations can only be customized in the Rotations tab. _
Depending on the management scenario (Conventional, Transition or Regenerative), each crop will also vary based on the management scenario, and, for the Transition scenario specifically, it will vary based on the year in which it is falling in the transition schedule. For example, under the Transition scenario the farm will start growing conventional corn, then organic corn during the transition period but that receives conventional prices, then organic corn receiving organic prices after transition. All crop expenses and revenue data is courtesy of FINBIN.
| Northeast Row Crops |
| Corn
conventional, transition, organic |
| Soybeans
conventional, transition, organic |
| Wheat
transition, organic |
| Hay
transition, organic |
| Corn Silage
organic |
| Midwest Row Crops |
| Corn
conventional, transition, organic |
| Soybeans
conventional, transition, organic |
| Hay
conventional, transition, organic |
| Wheat
transition, organic |
| Corn Silage
organic |
| Alfalfa
transition, organic |
Soil carbon resilience refers to the ability of soils to recover to its healthy state in response to destabilizing influences or events. Soil carbon is critical to overall soil health, as well as the health of broader ecosystems and the land serving as a carbon sink. The presence of carbon in soils -- and that soils’ ability to retain its carbon even under duress -- plays a significant role in not only crop production and yields but also the farm’s overall ability to weather an unforeseen storm, literally and metaphorically. As extreme weather events become increasingly common in the U.S. and around the world, farmers report more flooding, erosion, droughts, and extreme cold spells.11
According to research by Ohio State University’s Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, the world’s cultivated soils have lost between 50-70 percent of their original carbon stock.12 In the context of modern farming, these destabilizing influences may range from heavy tillage to overuse of chemical pesticides to synthetic fertilizer application -- common practices in conventional farm management. When soils are managed using these conventional practices, soil carbon is released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, which further contributes to climate change. Conversely, regenerative farming practices prioritize soil health and restoring degraded soils. This allows soil to retain its carbon levels and capture more atmospheric carbon. In this way, under regenerative management, healthy soils play a significant role in carbon sequestration and reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.
Soil carbon levels were determined by Rodale Institute based on average soil quality per region. While conventional and transition scenario soils stay flat at the 2 percent carbon level (a conservative estimate, as there is also strong potential of soil carbon decreasing due to intensive conventional production methods), the regenerative soils increase over time, rising to 6 percent in Year 8 and continuing through Year 18.
There are several risk factors modeled in the Calculator, most notably the year in which a farm experiences drought. Droughts have a significant impact on row crop production outcomes, such as limiting crop development, reducing harvest yields, and driving up irrigation and water use costs. The Drought Year (cell R3) can be changed and adapted by the user in the Assumptions tab.
Farms will generally experience loss in overall income during drought years. This trend is reflected in the Calculator. However, the losses are not as great under regenerative management as they are in conventional management. Drought resistance can be measured in different ways, but Rodale Institute’s latest institute emphasizes the importance of a) soil water retention, or the amount of water available to crops to grow and synthesize; b) soil hydraulic conductivity, which helps predict rates of soil drainage and flooding; and c) soil organic carbon and nitrogen, an indicator of soil health and organic matter.13
Conventional drought resistance is set to 60 percent in the first year in all three management scenarios and stays at that level throughout the conventional years. This is a conservative estimate as resistance may also decrease due to conventional farming practices that harm soil quality. In the regenerative scenario, drought resistance is much higher, increasing to 75 percent in Year 4; 85 percent in Year 6; and 90 percent in Year 8 and thereafter. Crop rotation is important here because if a drought occurs in a year when a high-profit crop is grown, net farm income will suffer more. Highly profitable corn and corn silage, for example, are factored into financial planning and relied on by regenerative farms to supplement less profitable crops that are grown for their long-term soil health benefits. By adjusting the Drought Year, users can model these risks in different years and with different crops.
Other risks that farmers may face are changes in price premiums, crop insurance and government subsidies. The data included in the model is a three-year average of crop-specific summary reports from FINBIN which comes from actual farm data from thousands of farms that use the FINPACK farm business management software. While the calculator uses the most available three-year average (2016-2018), crop prices today are perhaps even more highly volatile due to the on-going trade conflict with China and extreme weather events such as last spring’s historic flooding in the Midwest which have affected the availability and price of crops. Crop insurance and government subsidies are also affected by these factors. We would expect government payments for most commodity crops to be greater this year, for example, due to the $28 billion farm bailout authorized by President Trump to mitigate the impact of the trade conflict.14
Croatan Institute
http://www.croataninstitute.org
Delta Institute
FINBIN | The Farm Financial Management Database
Iowa State University - Organic Crop Production Enterprise Budgets
https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/html/a1-18.html
Land Stewardship Project - Cropping Systems Calculator https://landstewardshipproject.org/stewardshipfood/chippewa10croppingsystemscalculator
Montana State University - Organic Crop Budgeting Tool
http://agresearch.montana.edu/carc/OrganicCropBudget.html
Organic Grain Resource and Information Network (OGRAIN)
Organic Agriculture Revitalization Strategy (OARS)
Regenerative Agriculture Investor Network (RAIN)
https://www.lifteconomy.com/rain
Regenerative Organic Certification (ROC)
Rodale Institute
The Organic Center - Organic Grain Enterprise Budgets for ND, SD, and MT
https://www.organic-center.org/organic-grain-enterprise-budgets-for-nd-sd-and-mt/
Soil Wealth: Investing in Regenerative Agriculture Across Asset Classes
University of Minnesota - Organic Transition Planner
https://www.misa.umn.edu/publications/organictransitionplanner
USDA Organic Certification
https://www.usda.gov/topics/organic
USDA, Conservation Finance at NRCS
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/emkts/?cid=nrcseprd1396025
Alfahham, Abdel. Assessing Drought Resistance in Soils Managed with Regenerative Organic Practices, Rodale Institute, December 21, 2018.
Delta Institute. Land Tenure and Conservation in Agriculture: Creating Incentives for Landowners. 2019. Accessed January 2020.
Dietman, Paul. Turning Grain Into Dough: Farm Financial Management for Organic Grain and Crop Rotation. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, Organic Grains Resource and Information Network (OGRAIN).
Electris, Christi, Johua Humphreys, Kristin Lang, David LeZaks and Jamie Silverstein. _Soil Wealth: Investing in Regenerative Agriculture across Asset Classes. _July 2019, Croatan Institute, Delta Institute, and Organic Agriculture Revitalization Strategy (OARS).
Greenaway, Twilight. “Carbon Farming Works. Can It Scale Up in Time to Make a Difference?” Civil Eats, July 12, 2018.
McGreal, Chris. “As Climate Change Bites in America’s Midwest, Farmers Are Desperate to Ring the Alarm.” _The Guardian, _December 12, 2018.
Parker, Mario, and Mike Dorning. “Trumps’ $28 Billion Bet That Rural America Will Stick with Him”, _Bloomberg Businessweek, _September 19, 2019.
Project Drawdown. _Climate Solutions: Conservation Agriculture. _Accessed November 2019.
Reaves, Elizabeth, Carol Healy, and Jebediah Beach. US Organic Grain - How to Keep It Growing. Published in Partnership with Organic Trade Association, Sustainable Food Lab, and FarmSmart, February 2019.
Rodale Institute, “Regenerative Organic Agriculture.” Accessed January 2020.
Footnotes
-
Project Drawdown, Conservation Agriculture. ↩
-
Greenaway 2018. ↩
-
Electris et al, 2019. ↩
-
This work was supported by USDA NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant #69- 3A75-17-301, on Financing Regenerative Agriculture: Innovative Mechanisms to Mobilize Private Capital and Accelerate Deal Flow, led by Delta Institute. ↩
-
Electris, et al, 2019. ↩
-
Rodale Institute. ↩
-
Reaves, et al, 2019. ↩
-
Based on averages from both the Northeast (147% higher) and Midwest scenario (115% higher). Financial Calculator. ↩
-
Electris et al, 2019. ↩
-
Delta Institute, 2019. ↩
-
McGreal, 2018. ↩
-
Lal, 2004. ↩
-
Alfahham, 2018. ↩
-
Parker and Dorning, 2019. ↩