9 things to know about the future of food

<p>There’s one term that came up often — enough to be a buzzword — and that’s regenerative agriculture. The basic definition is that the user of the land is putting something back. That does imply that farming is all about taking things out of the land. But regenerative agriculture is a hot topic, and even in economic soft times, the pressure will be building. This concept is also gaining ground in ag groups, too, as cover crops and added rotations help boost soil health.</p>

<p>The key for farmers is getting more familiar with the concepts, and perhaps learning what will work — and won’t work — on a specific farm. And perhaps there’s an opportunity to take ownership of the term for a farmer’s use rather than an outsider’s perspective of a farm.</p>

<p>Related to regenerative agriculture, sustainability remains a hot topic. And it’s driving a new discussion of soil health. Note that soil health is a hard concept to quantify in an objective way, though new efforts are underway at the Soil Health Institute and the Soil Health Partnership to gain a handle on the concept. Just measuring organic matter presence may not be enough.</p>

<p>Cover crops are a hot-button item in the food world, because they see bare ground as bad news. For farmers investing in cover crops, the next challenge will be to quantify their value for the farm beyond the “feel good” measure that many producers still think they are. Quantifying what soil health means will help quantify the value of soil crops.</p>

<p>The food consumer is driving the conversation. During the Future of Food conference, there were references to how coconut is farmed for oil and whether it plays a role in rainforest deforestation (and in some parts of the world, it does). Food consumers are concerned not only by what’s in their food but also how it is produced; and while row crop farmers in corn, wheat or soybean country may feel that doesn’t affect them because they sell to processors, it could impact your farm. &nbsp;</p>

<p>Retail buyers of products — from corn for cereal to wheat for bread — are looking up the food chain to better understand the practices all suppliers use. You may be selling No. 2 yellow corn to the elevator, but the final buyer may want to know more about how you farm to meet company-established sustainability goals. This consumer driver will change food chains for the future.</p>

<p>One of the key challenges raised when farmers are approached about promoting regenerative agriculture or sustainability is that this is an added cost of doing business that the underlying commodity — corn, wheat, soybeans, milk — will not support as a business in today’s climate. One manufacturer on hand at the Future of Food event talked about instituting a cost-plus model. This involves the farmer and the company essentially opening their books and sharing cost figures.</p>

<p>In that model, the farmer would show actual cost of production, and the company would show its margins. The company would then pay the farmer for his or her costs, plus an agreed-upon profit margin. This specific manufacturer has instituted this on a global basis for about 40% of its supply of product. Whether that might work for other parts of the industry remains to be seen; yet, if there is true value to the company to have the farmer institute these practices, some of that value will need to be shared “upstream” to the farm.</p>

<p>One area raised several times during the conference was transparency. This is a big word, and it requires a more open discussion between all parts of the food value chain. As noted in the previous slide's text, transparency of the books between farmer and buyer could open the door to different pricing models. But consumers are demanding more transparency on all parts of the process, and having the right facts will be important.</p>

<p>Food labels are the consumer-facing area of transparency, and food companies have worked on ways to better tell their stories. Sometimes that means affixing a GMO-free label — even to things that could never have GMO content. The key on transparency, for the future, will require having the right facts about agriculture’s true impact on the environment. And that’s going to be a challenge. See the next slide.</p>

<p>During the Future of Food conference, there was talk of plant-based foods, those “replacements” for everything from burgers to eggs to cheese. There’s consumer interest in plant-based alternatives — but coupled with corporate-focused mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, livestock producers should be on the lookout. And consumers say they want to reduce their carbon footprint, too, with many promoting a plant-based diet (with or without meat-like alternatives) as an option.</p>

<p>The only good news on this front is that some plant-based alternatives to meat are touting they contain genetically modified ingredients and sharing with consumers that those foods are safe. The bigger worry is that market-changing convergence.</p>

<p>There remain many in agriculture skeptical about climate change, even in the face of changing weather patterns. However, most major food companies have stated mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout their value chain. That may be seen by shareholders as an admirable goal, but how companies achieve those numbers may cause challenges for traditional ag products.</p>

<p>The statistics spouted by some plant-based companies are counter to what beef and hog producers already know. Yet, if a plant-based company can convince a restaurant chain that a meat-alternative product will fill a greenhouse gas role, that company may be more likely to put it on the menu.</p>

<p>It’s that kind of convergence of plant-based food with corporate climate-awareness mandates that could cut into traditional farm product markets.</p>

<p>All the talk about soil health and sustainability means that farmers are going to hear a lot more about cover crops. But consider that the talk is changing a bit from just getting green on the ground. There was more talk about selecting covers that might be a “middle rotation” crop — say, between corn and soybeans — providing some kind of income source.</p>

<p>That may be as cattle feed for grazing, which is already popular in some parts of the country as ranchers graze winter wheat; or it might be a wintering crop that can be harvested early enough to get income while allowing for a spring-planted follow-up crop. Of course, developing that kind of system may take time. But the cover crop — essentially not allowing the sun to reach soil, but rather have living material on that ground year-round — is getting some traction across a lot of groups.</p>

<p>Years ago, there was the promise of carbon sequestration and measuring that value to provide farmers a check for doing that work. However, the idea ran into the problem of complexity. With all this talk about greenhouse gases and the importance of taking action, there’s renewed interest in carbon credits. Oregon is working on a measure that includes an agriculture component, and there’s some renewed talk in other parts of the country.</p>

<p>Gaining an objective measurement of carbon sequestered in an acre of land — and figuring out a cost for it — remains a challenge; but discussion of that kind of program has returned.</p>