When people think about the challenges of farming, they often picture weather, pests, or long days in the field. But for regenerative farms like ours, one of the biggest hurdles isn’t out in the pasture — it’s in the bank.
Securing funding for a regenerative farm looks very different than it does for a conventional, industrial farm. Here’s why.
Conventional Farms and Conventional Lending
Most traditional farms in the U.S. operate on a conventional model: high volumes of commodity crops or livestock, streamlined operations, and predictable margins. That model is what banks, lenders, and federal programs are used to financing.
- Predictable scale: Conventional farms often operate at large scale with standardized practices, making it easier for lenders to forecast production and repayment.
- Subsidies: Federal farm programs heavily subsidize commodity crops like corn, soy, and wheat — providing safety nets that lower lenders’ risk.
- Asset-heavy structures: Big equipment, storage facilities, and land purchases are tangible assets that banks understand and can collateralize.
Because of this, conventional farms often have easier access to loans, credit lines, and government-backed programs.
The Regenerative Reality
Regenerative farms, on the other hand, flip that script. We raise livestock on pasture, rotate them daily, build soil health, and prioritize animal welfare and ecological balance. It’s better for the land, the animals, and your dinner table — but it doesn’t fit into the traditional lending box.
Here’s what makes it tough:
- Smaller scale, higher diversity: Instead of monocropping, regenerative farms grow a mix of animals and plants, often at smaller scale. Lenders see this as “less efficient” and harder to predict.
- Few subsidies: Pasture-based livestock operations rarely qualify for the subsidies that prop up conventional grain or poultry systems.
- Cash flow challenges: Regenerative systems may require longer timelines to see returns (think infrastructure for rotational grazing, or the years it takes to rebuild soil). That makes lenders nervous.
- Unfamiliar metrics: How do you put a dollar value on carbon stored in the soil, or water infiltration improved by cover crops? Banks don’t yet have tools to measure these benefits, so they often don’t count.
Why It Matters
The irony is that regenerative farms are building resilience where it matters most: in the soil, in the climate, and in rural communities. They reduce erosion, capture carbon, improve water quality, and provide more nutrient-dense food. In the long run, these farms decrease risk — but they struggle to access the financial support they need to thrive.
What’s Changing
There’s a growing recognition of this gap, and new models are starting to emerge:
- Community-supported agriculture (CSA): Customers prepay for a share of food, providing farms with working capital.
- Impact investors & farm funds: Groups like Steward, Mad Agriculture, and others are working to fill the financing gap with loans designed for regenerative models.
- Local partnerships: Hospitals, schools, and co-ops are investing in local food systems, giving regenerative farms a steady market base.
- Carbon markets (emerging): Though imperfect, there’s movement toward compensating farms for carbon sequestration and ecosystem services.
How You Can Help
Every time you choose food from a regenerative farm, you’re voting for a different system — one that values soil health, animal welfare, and community resilience over industrial efficiency.
And if you’re able, supporting CSA programs, pre-ordering holiday turkeys, or even lending directly through farm-focused platforms helps bridge the gap that banks still don’t see.
Because regenerative farms aren’t just growing food — they’re growing the future we all depend on.
Leave a comment