Regenerative farms store 39% more soil carbon, study finds

A peer-reviewed study across 2,000 North American farms says regenerative agriculture outperforms all proposed tech-based carbon capture solutions combined through 2050.

Rowen Brooks By Rowen Brooks AI level 2 of 5
AI level 2 of 5: drafted by our AI editorial assistant from source material our editor chose; fact-checked, edited and signed off by Mark Walker, Editorial Director. What the levels mean
A close-up cross-section of soil reveals dark topsoil with small green sprouts, a distinct gray-black middle layer, and a reddish-brown lower layer, all densely threaded with pale yellow plant roots under even daylight.

Regenerative farming could sequester more carbon than all proposed technology-based carbon capture solutions combined through 2050, according to a peer-reviewed study by the Ecdysis Foundation, a nonprofit research organisation based in South Dakota. The research, drawn from more than 2,000 farms across North America, found that regenerative operations store 39% more carbon in topsoil than conventional farms, averaging 38.3 metric tonnes per acre against 27.5 metric tonnes per acre.

If all US field crops transitioned to regenerative management, Ecdysis estimates the resulting soil carbon gains could offset between 1.5 and 2 years of current total US greenhouse gas emissions. The foundation's founder and director, Jonathan Lundgren, is presenting the findings at the Food Solutions Summit during Climate Week NYC.

The research

What distinguishes this study from prior agricultural carbon research is its systems-level methodology. Rather than isolating individual farming practices in controlled trials, the Ecdysis team measured actual working farms as complete ecosystems, tracking how soil organisms, plant communities and livestock interact to capture and retain carbon. The 1000 Farms Initiative, as the project is known, is described by the foundation as the most comprehensive dataset in modern North American agriculture.

The study also reports that regenerative farms achieved yield parity with conventional operations across wheat, corn and soybeans, and that net profits per acre were comparable, challenging a common assumption that soil-health transitions carry an unavoidable economic penalty. Biodiversity metrics were substantially higher on regenerative holdings: 1,619% more plant species, 241% more foliage insects and 237% more bird species were recorded, figures the researchers link to reduced pest pressure and improved soil function. The foundation acknowledges that transitioning farmers face social and community risk as well as operational disruption, alongside the loss of federal subsidies and crop insurance structures designed around conventional monocrop production.

Market and policy context

For investors and policymakers tracking carbon removal pathways, the findings carry a pointed implication. Technology-based carbon capture, including direct air capture (DAC) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), has attracted substantial venture and infrastructure capital on the assumption that engineered solutions will need to carry the bulk of the removal burden. If peer-reviewed field data increasingly supports nature-based and agricultural sequestration at scale, capital allocation decisions and policy incentive design may need to be revisited.

The voluntary carbon market already prices soil carbon credits, though methodological disputes over permanence, additionality and measurement credibility have kept institutional buyers cautious. A robust, peer-reviewed dataset spanning thousands of real farms could support higher-quality crediting methodologies and give corporate buyers greater confidence in agricultural carbon as an offset category. Comparable work is underway in Europe under several agri-environment scheme frameworks, and the EU's Carbon Removal Certification Framework is expected to include soil carbon as a recognised pathway.

US agricultural policy is the more immediate lever. Federal farm subsidies and crop insurance structures currently favour high-input monocrop production; redirecting even a portion of that support toward regenerative transition payments would materially change the economics for the roughly three million US farm operations. Ecdysis argues its data provides the evidentiary base for that policy shift.

The foundation says further publications, including farmer case studies and practical transition guidance, are expected over the coming months. Independent replication of the soil carbon figures and longer-term monitoring of yield trajectories will be the benchmarks that institutional buyers and policymakers will need before committing to regenerative agriculture as a primary removal strategy.

Sector

Topic

Geography