Fewer inputs, greater profit? A 2018 study
Farm returns depend on yield, product value and costs. A larger harvest can come with costs that leave the grower less.
A comparison on working farms
Claire LaCanne and Jonathan Lundgren’s 2018 PeerJ study compared regenerative and conventional maize systems in the northern US plains, examining yield, profitability, pests and soil properties on farms already using different management.
Lower yield, higher profitability
In the sample, regenerative systems had 29% lower grain yield and 78% higher profitability under the researchers’ calculation. Yield and economics should be considered together. Hypothetically, €1,000 revenue minus €800 costs leaves €200, while €850 minus €500 leaves €350.
Soil and economics
Profitability correlated positively with particulate organic matter, but not yield. Pest insects were more abundant in conventional insecticide-treated fields than regenerative fields without insecticides.
Systems and financial records
The authors associate findings with whole-farm management change. Adding a single practice should not be expected automatically to reproduce them. Records of materials, fuel, labour, equipment, output and value show how changes affect returns.
Our field work
We plan application-cost, yield and microbiology records in olive groves to assess links between food web restoration, reduced inputs and economic viability.