How Federal Investments Could Shape Regenerative Agriculture Opportunities

Regenerative agriculture programs are designed to address challenges facing the agricultural industry, such as soil health, water conservation, wildlife habitat support, and energy use. Decision makers need to understand not only whether a practice can reduce emissions, but also where it can be implemented, how much it costs, how quickly adoption can occur, and how it may affect agricultural production and land-use elsewhere. 

To help answer these questions, RTI worked with the Platform for Agriculture and Climate Transformation and researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara; North Carolina State University; and the Sustainable Development Solutions Network to assess alternative funding scenarios for regenerative agriculture and forestry practices supported through U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs. 

Modeling Realistic Regenerative Agriculture Adoption 

We examined investments made through five USDA programs:  

• Environmental Quality Incentives Program 
• Conservation Stewardship Program 
• Regional Conservation Partnership Program 
• Agricultural Conservation Easement Program 
• Rural Energy for America Program 

The analysis reviewed program budgets, historical spending patterns, state-level practice costs, regionally specific mitigation potential, and limits on the land or agricultural operations available for enrollment. 

The project connected three complementary modeling tools: 

• A marginal abatement cost model estimated the adoption and direct greenhouse gas benefits of land-based conservation practices. 
• A separate assessment estimated emissions reductions from energy-efficiency and renewable-energy projects supported through the Rural Energy for America Program. 
• An updated U.S. FABLE Calculator evaluated how changes in crop productivity, land requirements, and agricultural production could create additional land-use effects. 

Connecting these tools allowed our team to move beyond estimates of direct emissions reductions and examine how a portfolio of conservation practices might affect the broader agricultural and land-use system. 

Across the five scenarios examined, modeled federal investments through USDA conservation programs resulted in between 1.5 billion and 2.6 billion metric tons of cumulative greenhouse gas mitigation from 2023 to 2050. That is equivalent to average annual reductions of approximately 54 million to 92 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. 

As expected, scenarios with more funding available for modeled regenerative practices generally resulted in more mitigation. But the results also showed that the amount of funding alone does not determine the outcome. The difference reflects both the practices receiving funding and the timing of those investments.  

Tree planting, manure management systems, and clean-energy projects can continue reducing emissions or storing carbon for years after their initial installation. Directing federal conservation funding toward these longer-lived practices earlier can produce benefits that accumulate well beyond the initial funding period. 

For agricultural companies, these differences matter because changes in federal conservation funding can influence which practices are supported, where adoption occurs, and how quickly those practices may scale. This is important context for companies developing supplier programs, sourcing strategies, or complementary private investments. 

How Regenerative Agriculture Opportunities Vary by Region 

The analysis also demonstrated why a single national list of preferred practices is not enough to effectively guide industry investments. Agricultural systems, land availability, conservation costs, and emission sources vary substantially across states. As a result, different activities often contribute the most mitigation and productivity benefits in different parts of the country. 

The variations we found align with well-recognized regional strengths:  

• Agroforestry practices were especially important in portions of the Southeast.  
• Nutrient management, conservation of crop rotations, and reduced tillage played larger roles in several Corn Belt states.  
• Livestock manure management contributed substantially to mitigation in California and other dairy- and livestock-producing regions.  
• Rice management practices were most relevant in states along the lower Mississippi River and in Texas. 

Costs also vary widely by practice category. In the climate-focused reinvestment scenario, livestock manure management, rice management, agricultural energy, and agroforestry activities produced estimated greenhouse gas reductions at average costs below $12 per metric ton. Nutrient management practices remained below approximately $50 per metric ton, while grazing, pasture, and some soil-health practices were more costly when evaluated solely on their greenhouse gas benefits. 

Agricultural leaders should note that USDA conservation programs were not created solely to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Practices that appear relatively expensive from a climate perspective may provide substantial benefits for water quality, erosion control, habitat, soil health, or farm resilience. Greenhouse gas cost-effectiveness is not the only measure of program value. 

Accounting for Production and Land-Use Effects 

By analyzing how conservation practices influence production and land use, our model provides valuable insights for future planning in the agriculture sector. 

Some practices improve yields or livestock productivity, reducing the amount of land needed to produce a given quantity of food. Others may temporarily lower yields or remove portions of cropland from production. 

Approximately 60% to 75% of enrolled acres could experience positive productivity effects under most of the scenarios examined. Changes in total cropland, pasture, and forest area attributable to the modeled portfolios were generally less than 0.2%. However, particular practices, especially tree establishment, produced larger shifts among individual land categories. 

What Federal Funding Scenarios Mean for Agribusiness Strategy 

The analysis suggests several ways food and agriculture companies can use information about the federal conservation funding landscape when developing regenerative agriculture strategies. 

Consider the timing and durability of federal support. Federal funding can influence when and where farmers have resources available to adopt regenerative practices. Because some practices generate benefits over many years, companies planning multi-year supplier programs may benefit from understanding where sustained public investment could support longer-term adoption. 

Match strategies to regional opportunities. The practices with the greatest mitigation potential and cost-effectiveness vary considerably across the country. Companies can use this regional variation to help identify where particular practices may be most relevant to their sourcing regions and supplier networks rather than applying a single approach nationally. 

Consider multiple outcomes when prioritizing practices. Greenhouse gas mitigation is only one potential benefit of conservation practices. Water quality, soil health, habitat, resilience, productivity, and producer needs may also matter for companies evaluating which regenerative practices align with their sustainability and sourcing objectives. 

Pair financial incentives with implementation support. Higher modeled funding did not exhaust the potential adoption of many practices. For companies developing supplier programs, this reinforces the importance of considering barriers beyond the availability of financial incentives, including technical assistance, farmer engagement, and ease of participation. 

Using the Analysis to Inform Sourcing and Supplier Programs 

No scenario model can predict precisely how every farmer, market, or acre of land will respond to future policy. By connecting program budgets with practice-level costs, regional mitigation opportunities, adoption constraints, agricultural productivity, and land-use effects, the analysis provides a foundation for evaluating how U.S. agriculture might respond to the federal funding landscape. 

The central finding is clear: For food and agriculture organizations, understanding when, where, and how investments reach farmers can support more informed decisions about sourcing, supplier programs, and sustainability goals.  

Learn more about RTI’s agriculture analysis and modeling solutions and sustainable agriculture work.