How do we feed the world? It’s all nice and cute this regenerative agriculture and food stuff, but how do we actually feed the world? By 2050, we’ll need to produce double the amount of food. This is a question you, like me, get a lot, we bet, from banks, pension funds, large institutional players, investors in general, entrepreneurs, and eco-modernists.
Our go-to answer was always: go to the most pioneering farmers and see what they can produce. But the counterargument was always: “Show me the research!”. Now we have the research.
In this Walking the Land episode, recorded straight from one of the most advanced farms in Europe, we talk to Simon, Kraemer, executive director of the European Alliance for Regenerative Agriculture (EARA) and the lead author of a revolutionary study where they looked at 78 of the most pioneering farms in Europe and compared them to their conventional neighbours. They analyse everything from fertiliser use, finances, and pesticides to the holiest of grails: photosynthesis. And guess what? Regenerative outperformed conventional in almost everything. Similar or higher yields, more than 75% reduction in NPKs, significantly reduced chemical use and, best of all, over the seven years they compared them, the regenerative farms kept getting better and better. Imagine what that looks like after 15 years! And imagine applying all that knowledge to new farms or new fields. There’s an S-curve and exponential growth in regeneration when you look at photosynthesis on regenerative fields.
So how did this study land in the agri-food world in Europe? What about the large food companies, and policymakers in Brussels who decide about the biggest pot of agricultural subsidies in the world: the €400 billion CAP, renewed every five years?
We also discuss why it has been so difficult to conduct this kind of research, what has been flawed in most other productivity, focused agricultural studies, and, of course, what’s next. This is only the beginning and the next phases are even more exciting focusing on more granular satellite data, for instance measuring field temperatures at 3 p.m. instead of 10 a.m. (you can really see the difference with permanent living ground cover—the issue being the 10 a.m. data is free, and the 3 p.m. data costs money). Also, why not, look specifically at difficult years; comparing data regionally instead of nationally; and a big one comparing the health of leading regenerative farming families to that of nearby conventional families.
AMAZING REPORT BY EARA
We dive in the core motivation behind conducting this groundbreaking study. There is a gap between what pioneering regenerative farmers are already achieving and the limited ambitions of current political and scientific establishments. The report aimed to empirically demonstrate that these farmers are already outperforming conventional sustainability targets set for the future.
“We needed to show that we are already empirically better than they believe we can be in 2040. […] We are trying to translate that into the language of conventional farmers so we can inoculate them and have them to get on the journey. We haven’t done that for our public servants. And so our public servants that work on economics and agriculture and food system, they work in the mindset of total fucked up productivity, which is their economic term to assess how efficiently and effectively the farm, the region or the nation or the continent is using mainly money to produce food, kilo calories, but mainly more money. And that is basically coordinated by the OECD, and that is just like the LCA. It’s completely off guards of what we know today.” Simon Kraemer
WHY MOST OTHER REPORTS AND RESEARCH ABOUT PRODUCTIVITY AND POSSIBLE PATHWAYS TO MAKE AGRIFOOD MORE SUSTAINABLE ARE FLAWED
The standard methodology used in most agricultural studies often relies on controlled field trials that change only one variable. Simon argues that this approach is context-specific and does not reflect the complex, results-oriented reality of working farms, especially those using regenerative principles. Traditional trials isolate variables and flatten context; policy models fixate on total factor productivity while ignoring what matters most on a farm: sunlight converted into biomass and soil function that buffers heat and drought. By combining field data with satellite analysis, the study gives policymakers, financiers, and supply chains something concrete to act on.
“What the normal studies do is they collect literature analysis or field tests, and then they compound them in some way and extrapolate them in some way… But then also the problem of only 78 farmers, not so much of a problem because what are they doing actually there? We do a field trial here. And we do three different trials and we run them over three years where we change only one variable.” Simon Kraemer
HOW POLICYMAKERS AND THE AGRI-FOOD SECTOR IN EUROPE RESPONDED TO THIS STUDY
Since the publication of the report, Simon notes a surprisingly strong and positive uptake within the corporate and private finance sectors related to regenerative agriculture. However, he finds the response from the policy world to be more muted and in line with his lower expectations, though he sees promising inroads being made.
“So that’s on the positive remarks. So, I would say in the whole finance and private sector regen ag world, it has all by far stripped my expectations. Then in the policy world, I think we are now having the core messages, which we can carry there… I didn’t have expectations because I haven’t spent too much time in that regard but I think that could be better for sure. ” Simon Kraemer
WHAT DOES THE NEXT PHASE OF THE STUDY LOOK LIKE
Simon outlines the ambitious plans for the next phase of research, which are contingent on securing more funding. The goals are to expand the number of participating farms, deepen the economic and ecological analysis with more granular data, and launch new modules focused on livestock and even human health.
The team aims to expand from 78 to 250 farms, analyze stress-year yields, and use afternoon satellite passes to capture true surface temperature gaps. On livestock, they’re building LCAs that include soil carbon and water, and documenting local feed loops that challenge “land hungry” narratives. And there’s a bold frontier ahead: exploring health signals in families eating from regenerative farms to complement nutrient density work in the lab. The takeaway is simple and disruptive: policy should reward outcomes like photosynthesis and living groundcover, not inputs. That shift unlocks farmer creativity, lowers input risk, and scales resilience per hectare.
“We now planned the second phase for which we already fundraised some of the core. And we have basically three aspects in that. Phase one is continuing the hardcore agro economic ecological work where we want to, we had 78 farmers, we want to grow to 250.” Simon Kraemer
OTHER POINTS DISCUSSED
Koen and Simon also talked about:
- Nutrient density of food
- Life Cycle Assessment limitations
- Regenerating Full Productivity (RFP)
LINKS:
LINKED INTERVIEWS:
- Sheila Darmos – Why Greece is leading the regenerative agriculture movement and what the world can learn
- Matteo Mazzola – Walking the land of Iside Farm with a regenerative farmer
- Dimitri Tsitos – Making regenerative intensive tree crops profitable
- Anne van Leeuwen, regenerative farmer in The Netherlands
- Marco Carbonara – Using 10 species of animals to profitably regenerate 100 hectares of forgotten Italian land between Rome and Florence
——————————————
Feedback, comments, suggestions? Reach me via Twitter @KoenvanSeijen, in the comments below or through Get in Touch on this website.
Join the Investing in Regenerative Agriculture and Food newsletter on www.eepurl.com/cxU33P
The above references an opinion and is for information and educational purposes only. It is not intended to be investment advice. Seek a duly licensed professional for investment advice.