The “vast majority” of of agriculture industry professionals surveyed are “pro regen ag,” according to a recent report from Purdue University venture studio DIAL Ventures.
It’s in the details that the conversation becomes more nuanced, says Lourival Monaco, a research assistant professor in agricultural economics at Purdue University and a co-author of the report.
“When you look at what they rank as the important features of regen ag versus what the ag industry believes are the important features, they don’t match at all,” he recently told AgFunderNews.
But when it comes to why regen ag matters and, most importantly, who pays for it, ag professionals (e.g., farmers, input manufacturers, distributors) and consumers generally sit on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Monaco discusses this in more detail below.
DIAL Ventures’ recent Agrifood Economy Index report found that “an overwhelming majority”—82%—were at the very least moderately familiar with regenerative agriculture; 70% supported its adoption on US farms.
Profitability ranked as the most important attribute of regenerative agriculture, which the report says underscores “the industry’s emphasis on economic sustainability alongside environmental goals.”
AFN: What was the survey’s most important takeaway regarding regenerative agriculture?
Lourival Monaco (LM): The overarching one is that farmers and ag professionals as a whole see regenerative agriculture not as a political statement but as a technical opportunity/challenge.
They’re going to adopt practices that make sense for a farm production system. If cover crops are something that is going to [provide] some sort of return on investment—it can be a financial return or other type of return—a farmer will decide to adopt.
If [a practice] doesn’t give a very clear return, they’re not going to adopt it. Farmers are not in the business of doing things because it’s right; they’re doing things because it’s the right thing to do for the farm. It’s nuanced, but that’s something that’s really important.
We talked to a bunch of farmers and people across the entire industry. It is crystal clear to everyone—and we actually have data to back it up—that the vast majority of our industry is pro regen ag. Granted, they like the idea in varying levels, but very few people are against it.
What they do say, though, is that the reason they’re doing it is because they think that’s a way to maintain farm profitability. So it’s a risk management tool, and can be a profit-enhancing or revenue-enhancing tool in the medium to long term.
At the end of the day, it’s about what makes economical and technical sense for [the farmers]—and that’s something that the general population doesn’t seem to realize.
AFN: Do you detect a big divide in what consumers think about regen versus ag professionals?
LM: We did a survey in August [2024] with 1,200 consumers in the US; it was a representative symbol of the US population. When you look at what they rank as the important features of regen ag versus what the ag industry believes are the important features, they don’t match at all. Except for the soil health part.
Consumers say [regen ag] is going to make food cheaper, which I don’t think is going to be the case. And they don’t see farm profitability as something important.
When you look at ag professionals, it’s exactly the opposite. When I say ag professionals, it’s everyone from input manufacturers to food manufacturers and everything in the middle. They believe consumers should be paying for it, though there’s a caveat that. It’s not like the bill is going to be sent to consumers; it’s more in the sense of if consumers are willing to pay for [regenerative] products, farmers would be willing to produce them.
Regen ag has a cost. But consumers basically say, “anyone but me.” They put the government forward [as the party that should pay], which is interesting, because the government money is actually the people’s money.
There’s a really big disconnect in regen ag, specifically on consumers and how they see and behave around this topic, and our ag professionals and how they see and behave around this topic. That’s a problem.
AFN: Will it ever be possible to get consumers to pay for regen ag?
LM: There’s a good body of knowledge and a bunch of surveys say when consumers buy food, they look at a few things in [a certain] order: taste, affordability, and a distant third is nutrition. Environmental aspects are fifth.
So if you’re trying to get people to change their behavior, you have to start from the top. But probably won’t be able to change taste based on how things are produced. Affordability is certainly not going to work, since [regeneratively produced goods] are more expensive.
Nutrition is probably the one we can tackle, but people’s belief system is so strong that if you believe sustainable, regen ag, organic, etc. are better for you, there’s nothing that’s going to change your mind. The other side of the spectrum is that if you don’t believe those things will be improved, you won’t do it.
So there’s a really big resistance to change here, and that’s one of the problems we’re running into when we think about what people will pay for. The ones who will are already doing it and the ones who won’t will not change.
