“If it improves the ground, it’s going to improve my potential income.” — Kipp Hinrichs, Glenvil, Nebraska farmer That statement captures the heart of regenerative agriculture. It’s not just about environmental stewardship — it’s about economic resilience.
The term “Regenerative Agriculture” has become a buzzword in farming circles. But beyond the headlines, what does it really mean? At its core, it’s about working with nature — enhancing soil health, boosting biodiversity, and building resilience. In today’s tough farm economy, that’s not just an ecological win — it’s money in the bank.
Let’s face it. Current grain prices aren’t doing farmers any favors: corn hovers around $4 a bushel, soybeans around $10. At the same time, fertilizer prices continue to climb, with AGWEB reporting June 2025 corn-to-fertilizer ratios among the worst in history.
folks are raising the question: “What can we do differently to change this economic condition?”
Two soil health economic considerations may help answer that question: Long-term Investment while Building on Relational Systems.
Improving soil health isn't a quick fix - it's an investment in natural capital: land and water. High yields alone don't guarantee profitability if they rely on expensive synthetic inputs. Soil Organic Matter (SOM) tells the real story.
• 4% SOM or higher: healthy, naturally fertile soil 2% SOM or lower: biologically deficient soil
Unfortunately, much of Nebraska’s cropland trends toward the lower end. And while restoring soils won’t happen overnight, consistent regenerative practices — no-till, cover crops, diverse rotations — can transform them over time.
The payoff? Enhanced fertility, reduced erosion, and greater water-holding capacity. Yes, it takes patience (often 5+ years), but financial assistance pro grams and organizations like the Nebraska Soil Health Coalition (NSHC) are helping producers make the leap.
And the numbers are encouraging. Partnering with the Soil Health Institute (SHI), NSHC has found that regenerative systems deliver real economic gains in terms of per-acre net farm income. Early findings from a sample of South-Central Nebraska farms:
• Irrigated systems: Additional net farm income of over $150 per acre for corn and $90 for soybeans
• Non-irrigated systems: Additional net farm income of nearly $190 per acre for corn and more than $100 for soybeans.
These levels suggest Return on Investment (ROI) to regenerative system practices of 10% annually or more with payback of 7 years or less.
As Hinrichs explains: “If it improves the ground, it’s going to improve my potential income.” He’s putting this into practice by converting row crop ground to perennial grazing.
Economics alone won’t sustain regenerative agriculture—it’s also about relationships and systems thinking.
Within the farm, that means experimenting with cover crops, diversifying rotations, and even integrating livestock — issues that NSHC’s producer-to produce learning communities can help address. It also requires alignment among family members, and cooperation between landowners and tenants.
Switching from one-year cash rent agreements to multi-year crop-share leases, for example, can strengthen partnerships and spread risk. Meanwhile, producer-to-producer learning hubs foster community knowledge-sharing, helping farmers troubleshoot challenges together.
And let’s not forget the bigger picture: regenerative practices deliver social, environmental, and economic benefits that ripple outward to the broader rural community. Cleaner water, healthier soils, and stronger local economies create what can only be described as a win-win-win for People, Planet, and Profit.
