Regenerative Corn Production is More Profitable than Conventional

A peer-reviewed study found a whopping 78% higher gross profit on regenerative corn farms compared to location-matched conventional farms.

Lots of folks I speak with about regenerative ag assume that switching to regenerative practices means a decrease in yield and a decrease (at least temporarily) in profits. Leading consultants in the field, such as Gabe Brown and Alan Williams of Understanding Ag and John Kempf of Advancing Eco Ag tell a different story. Often the success stories are dismissed as "anecdotal", but isn't every story "anecdotal"?

There IS a marked dearth of academic papers on profitability of regenerative practices. In part, this is because scientific research tends to study things in isolation, evaluating a single practice, rather than a holistic system. Add to this that researchers typically are not well-versed in the regenerative practices they may be studying, which can lead to poorer results than would be seen in the hands of experienced practitioners.

This peer reviewed article looked at 10 pairs of corn farms; one regenerative and one conventional, from the same townships in the upper Midwest (ND, SD, MN) on a total of 76 individual fields. The regenerative operations were defined by 1)abandoning tillage, 2)use of cover crops or otherwise minimizing bare soil, 3)fostering plant diversity and 4)integrating livestock. Soil organic matter, insect pest populations, corn yield and profit were assessed for each of the 76 fields.

The results were pretty amazing.

• Insect pest populations were 10-fold higher on the conventional farms than the regenerative farms. This is despite (or perhaps because of) pesticide applications on the conventional farms. Increased diversity, insect predator habitat and larger populations of both birds and predatory insects are the likely reason for less pests on the regenerative fields.

• Gross profits were 78% higher on the regenerative farms. The difference in profitability was primarily driven by higher seed, fertilizer and pesticide costs. In addition, regenerative farms typically have lower fuel costs. Some of the farms also received premiums for their crop and/or sold into alternate supply chains. Income from the integration of livestock on the regenerative farms was also a contributor to higher profits.

• Profitability was significantly correlated to soil organic matter and negatively correlated to measures of soil compaction. Soil organic matter increases water infiltration rates, and supports greater microbial diversity, which positively impact production. Profitability was NOT significantly correlated with yield.

• Corn yields were 29% lower on regenerative farms. However, this does not necessarily translate to less food produced per acre. Remember that the regenerative farmers integrate livestock into their operations, so the additional calories from pastured meat and eggs can replace or exceed the corn yield decrease. Interestingly, only 4% of corn is consumed directly in some form by humans. 36% is fed to livestock, yet only 13% of the calories from grain-fed meat is attributable to corn.

The bottom line is that regenerative farming systems can be both more profitable AND improve our natural resource base. To quote the authors: "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"