Trouble and hope in regenerative agriculture 

By Stephanie Anderson 

I grew up on a cattle ranch and wheat farm in western South Dakota. I did not know it, but climate change was already impacting my family’s operation. 

Compared to when Indigenous tribes stewarded the land and, later, my homesteading ancestors, the prairie’s summers were hotter on average. Droughts, already part of that ecosystem’s cycle, were lasting longer, while extreme precipitation events were becoming more common and dangerous. As a kid, I thought all this was normal for South Dakota. 

I now understand how seriously climate-related disasters are disrupting American agriculture after 15 years of writing about that sector and staying connected via my family. Droughts, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, abnormal freezes and strong storms have always existed, but they are increasing in intensity and frequency due to global warming. 

Our climate problems run deeper than single weather incidents, as environmental norms farmers have relied on for hundreds of years no longer apply. For instance, U.S. plant hardiness zones are moving northward at 13 miles per decade, and the world’s wheat belt is shifting poleward up to 160 miles per decade. Warming temperatures are worsening pest and plant disease pressure, and attracting new populations that farmers aren’t prepared to handle. 

Farming in today’s climate requires exceptional resiliency. Resiliency typically arises from crop and animal diversity, healthy soil, water conservation, limited input dependence and the ability to adapt one’s business model and farming practices to changing environmental and economic conditions, all hallmarks of regenerative agriculture. Regenerative agriculture encompasses a wide range of practices — crop rotation, minimal tillage, multispecies livestock integration, rotational grazing and cover crops, to name a few — that together can help farms and ranches withstand a warming world. 

In contrast, conventional industrial farms tend to overspecialize in a small number of crops or livestock on a large scale, which makes pivoting in response to change extremely difficult. Their practices, such as monoculture cropping, intense livestock production in confinements and heavy agrochemical use, weaken the land and increase greenhouse gas emissions. And industrial agriculture is economically damaging for farmers; most are heavily in debt and thus ill-equipped to adapt their operations. The bottom line: America’s conventional farmers are vulnerable. 

We need to help those farmers adapt and encourage beginning producers to go regenerative from the start. But this year, the Trump administration canceled $3.1 billion in funding for climate-smart commodity programs. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) moved unallocated conservation dollars from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act into the permanent baseline funding for conservation programs within the Farm Bill — a move that does increase long-term conservation spending, but also removes climate-specific initiatives. 

In addition, the OBBB significantly boosts financial support for the biggest industrial commodity crop producers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture ripped climate-related information from its website that farmers rely on, and the agency likely would not have restored it if farmers had not sued. Like Trump and most in his administration, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins is a climate-denier. 

There’s no sugar-coating that the Trump administration is slowing the nation’s shift to regenerative agriculture. Still, all is not lost. I am here to offer some hope to regenerative farmers, young and would-be regenerative growers in particular, in the face of so much hostility toward those who simply want to steward our shared land responsibly and ensure a steady food supply.

From an environmental perspective, regenerative operations are better positioned to survive and thrive in a changing climate. But let’s look at the numbers, too. Even without government or other support, research confirms that regenerative farms and ranches are more profitable than their conventional counterparts, especially over time. That’s thanks to lower input costs, more productive soil that stores more water, and decreased insect and weed pressure. 

Administrations come and go, but regenerative operations have financial staying power. Yes, farmers are devastated over lost conservation funds and many will have to delay regenerative expansions or transitions. But staying on the path of regenerative agriculture tends to result in positive economic outcomes no matter where we are in the election cycle. The profit gap between regenerative and industrial operations will surely grow as the planet continues to warm.  

Regenerative operations also produce the type of food consumers actually want. A National Farm Bill Poll conducted by the John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future found that 90% of respondents favor regenerative agriculture, and an even higher percentage believe the federal government should help small and midsize agricultural producers.

The poll revealed virtually equivalent support for sustainable food production that ensures healthy food now and in the future. Seventy percent of respondents affirmed that they would pay more for sustainably produced food, and 75% would do the same for meat from animals raised on smaller, family-owned farms instead of in confinements.  

Food companies are striving to meet that demand. PepsiCo promised to implement regenerative agriculture on 7 million acres by 2030. Walmart plans to ensure that 30 million acres utilize regenerative practices by the same year and committed to helping at least 30,000 farmers transition to regenerative production. General Mills pledged to advance regenerative agriculture on 1 million acres by 2030, while Cargill promised the same for 10 million acres by then, plus regenerative agriculture training and increased market access for 10 million farmers. And the list goes on. All these efforts represent exciting opportunities for growers transitioning away from industrial practices and ongoing market support for existing regenerative producers. 

The current administration may not support regenerative agriculture. But the American people do. So does the food industry, whose leaders understand that regenerative agriculture is the best way to ensure a stable food supply. 

Of the many more reasons regenerative agriculture is a safer bet than conventional, perhaps the most compelling is this: Regenerative agriculture offers farmers resiliency, stability and independence that no administration can take away.  

Stephanie Anderson is an assistant professor of creative nonfiction at Florida Atlantic University and the author of the book “From the Ground Up: The Women Revolutionizing Regenerative Agriculture” (The New Press, 2024). Banner photo: Producers use rotational grazing, a regenerative agriculture practice, to manage pasture outside Latham, Kansas, in June 2021 (Photo by Stephanie Anderson).

Sign up for The Invading Sea newsletter by visiting here. To support The Invading Sea, click here to make a donation. If you are interested in submitting an opinion piece to The Invading Sea, email Editor Nathan Crabbe at ncrabbe@fau.edu.