We routinely hear the argument posed that while regenerative agriculture may be good for soil health, it simply cannot feed the world.  We also hear the statement that regeneratively produced foods are too expensive and are for higher income folks only.  Too often, these statements come from very highly educated people who have professional degrees and occupy important positions.  

The truth is neither of these two arguments is correct.  As a matter of fact, the concept of “feeding the world” as we go into the future is hugely dependent on applying regenerative agriculture across far more acres globally.  The current model of agriculture has further degraded our soils, damaged our ecosystems and reduced food nutrient density.  

Recently we were in the UK and Ireland.  The issues we encountered there were very similar to the issues we see here in the U.S. relative to agriculture and food.  Degraded soils, over-grazing, too much tillage, poor water infiltration capacity, shallow roots, poor nutrient density were all prevalent, as was the significantly higher cost of all agricultural inputs.  However, one of the things that we immediately observed and was consistent across most of the UK and Ireland was the dearth of insects and birds.  We have noted significant declines in beneficial insect and bird populations in the U.S., but it was far more evident there.  When we brought this up to farmers there, they had hardly noticed until we asked them about population numbers in the past.  Many who were in the 60’s or older thought back several decades ago and remembered that insect and bird population used to be far greater.  Why the decline?  The much higher use of all types of synthetics and pesticides, along with habitat loss to more modern agricultural methods.  

To tear down the arguments we hear about feeding the world and expensive regenerative food, let’s first look at food production per acre comparing conventional to regenerative.  Let’s take a typical beef cattle operation compared to a regenerative operation on the same acres.  

For this example, we will use a 1,000-acre farm that represents a compilation of many of the regenerative farms we consult with (and includes data from our own personal farms).  We will assume  800 acres of grazable land located in the southeastern U.S., with 200 acres of woodland.  If this was a conventional livestock farm, it would run about 300 cow/calf pairs on an annual basis.  For 90%+ of all farms in this region, the cattle would be the primary source of revenue, with maybe a little timber sales every 2-3 decades.  

Conventional

So, if we allow for a generous 92% pregnancy rate and a 90% weaning rate with 300 total cows, then 270 calves would be available for sale after weaning.  If the farm had a 10% cow cull rate, then 30 cows would be sold each year and 45+ heifers retained for replacements.  That would leave 225 calves available to sell after weaning.  Let’s say the calves averaged 550 lbs at selling.  In today’s market they would be worth $1.80/lb or $990/head.  For 225 calves that is gross sales of $222,750.  The 30 cull cows weighing 1200 lbs each at $0.75/lb would bring $27,000.  There would be 15 extra heifers from the year prior to sell at $1000 each (I’m being generous) for another $15,000.  Total annual gross sales would be $264,750.  Total lbs of live weight sold off the farm would be 123,750 lbs of weaned calves, 36,000 lbs of cull cows, and 15,000 lbs of heifers.  That equals a total of 174,750 lbs of live weight.  The farm is not selling any end product directly.  The calves have to go to a stocker operator and then to a feeder before they are ready to harvest.  The farm of origin does not have anything to do with this.  Total pounds of live weight produced per acre annually would be 175 lbs.  

True cost of food

There is a very false perception that food considered regenerative costs a lot more than other food and only the “elite” can afford it.  Most consumers buy the majority of their food by the package and never consider the actual price per lb.  For many of the common items people routinely purchase, the price per pound is far higher than realized (Table 1).  

Table 1.  Price Per Pound for Common Food Items.