Our choice to farm regeneratively is a decision to invest in our farm over the long-term. This not only aligns with the ethos of how we want to grow food, but also is backed by substantial research showing that regenerative practices are better in the long term. 

Soil: building it vs. depleting it

The clearest long-term data comes from the Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial, which has run parallel conventional and organic/regenerative plots side by side since 1981 — over 40 years of the same land, two different systems.

After four decades, the regenerative plots held 16 to 26 more metric tons of carbon per hectare than the conventional plots, measured to one meter deep. Manure-based regenerative management accounted for the larger gain (+26.2 Mg C/ha); legume-based rotations alone still added +16.0 Mg C/ha. A separate multi-study analysis (Gattinger et al., 2012) found organic systems sequestering carbon at roughly 0.45 more metric tons per hectare per year than conventional systems.

In regenerative systems the soil is building organic matter over time, which shows up eventually as yield, water-holding capacity, and how much (less) synthetic fertilizer is needed just to stay even.

Water: what happens when it doesn't rain — or when it rains too much

A 2019 meta-analysis of 89 studies in PLOS ONE looked at what actually improves water infiltration in soil. The practices behind regenerative systems performed best: perennial cover increased infiltration by 59.2%, cover crops by 34.8%. No-till alone, without residue retention, barely moved the number.

The Rodale trial's real-world stress test came in 1999, a flood year in Pennsylvania: the regenerative plots captured more than twice as much water as the conventional plots during the event, and over five years stored 16–25% more water overall with 7–13% higher water content in the root zone.

The flip side showed up in drought years. In the 1999 extreme-weather season, conventional corn yields collapsed to a fifth of their long-term average — the regenerative manure system still produced 37% more grain than conventional that year, and regenerative soybeans came in 53–96% ahead. In the 2012 drought, regenerative corn averaged 31% higher yields than conventional. Across the moderate drought years from 1988–1998, the regenerative system out-yielded conventional in four of five years.

Emissions: the quieter difference

The same 42-year Rodale-adjacent DOK trial in Switzerland found organic management cut area-scaled nitrous oxide emissions — a greenhouse gas roughly 270 times more potent than CO₂ — by 40.2% compared to conventional. A broader review of 19 field studies (Skinner et al., 2014) found organically managed soils produced 492 kg fewer CO₂-equivalent emissions per hectare per year than conventionally managed soils.

Our Small Role

Every regenerative practice does not make sense for every farmer on every farm.  We're making the bet on our small farm that the result from these studies will have a positive long-term impact on our trees, the nutritional quality of the nuts they produce, and (hopefully) our bottom line.

 

●      Role of Regenerative Organic Agriculture in a Changing Climate — Rodale Institute

●      Comparing infiltration rates in soils managed with conventional and alternative farming methods: A meta-analysis — PLOS ONE

●      Agricultural Runoff Fuels Gulf Dead Zones — Fluence

●      Impacts of neonicotinoid use on long-term population changes in wild bees in England — Nature Communications

●      Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change — Rodale Institute (white paper, DOK trial N₂O data)