“How can we talk about regenerative systems without talking about the fact that we still have upwards of 40% of waste and loss happening on farms?”
lost or wasted. Roughly 15% of all food grown — 1.3 billion tons, representing 4% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas — never makes it off the farm. This massive amount of waste is worth addressing as the world’s population barrels toward 10 billion in 2050. “We know that if we can reduce all loss and waste, we would have more than enough food to feed our global population,” Prezkop says. Prezkop’s team at WWF wanted to figure out how food loss in regenerative farming stacks up against other farming methods, like conventional and organic. So they partnered with four conventional and organic producers — Braga Fresh, Shepherd’s Grain, Zirkle, and Fresh Del Monte — that were trialing regenerative practices. All hoped to improve soil health and profitability, whether by reducing tillage, companion planting, cover
cropping, integrating pest management, or using fewer chemicals and herbicides. Using WWF’s Global Farm Loss Tool, the producers tracked food loss and gathered financial and environmental data. Over two years, participants saw some environmental improvements, like better soil quality, improved pest control, more water retention, higher soil carbon levels, and a reduction in water and fertilizer use. Everyone made it through the transition without losing revenue, though there weren’t huge gains. For example, Braga Fresh cut its production costs per acre by roughly 12% by reducing tillage (which saved on diesel) and cover cropping (which lessened the need for fertilizer and water). But reduced tillage meant lower yields, and workers had to spend more time sifting through weeds, grass, and other companion plants alongside the crops.
purveyor Republic of Tea, focuses on repurposing
Opposite, from top: Fresh Del Monte banana fields. Braga Fresh cover crop seed blend. After first tillage at Braga Fresh. Below: Farmers are more likely to adopt sustainable practices that they perceive to have positive ROI.
food that would otherwise be lost. “It can be funneled down many different channels, whether the retailer uses it or it’s put into an upcycled item or animal feed or donation,” Prezkop says. The first step is collecting more data. WWF’s report urges growers to measure what’s being left in the fields “early and often.” Knowing where and why loss happens can prevent waste and unlock unexpected business opportunities, Prezkop says. That’s exactly what happened at Fresh Del Monte’s conventional pineapple farms on the south Pacific coast of Costa Rica. Seventy-five percent of its fruit wasn’t making the export cut — leaving over 100,000 tons of residual pineapple. So the company invested in a processing facility to turn it into juice. The result? The company hasn’t sent any food to a landfill since 2022, and it’s saving more than $1 million annually on freight and fuel. Even so, Prezkop believes circularity alone won’t solve the problem. The report recommends that buyers, aggregators, and retailers rethink rigid product standards. Although the USDA sets the baselines for those standards, retailers usually have additional qualifications. “If [growers] knew that ‘Okay, this buyer will still take this product even if it has blemishes,’ maybe they’d be open to trying these practices,” she says. Braga Fresh has already started educating its buyers. On field visits, the company hands out flyers with illustrations of helpful insects.
In some cases, the report says, rather than taking imperfect produce to market, Braga Fresh found it more profitable to till the crop back into the soil and replant a new one immediately. Because of the region’s mild climate, Braga Fresh can grow multiple harvests per year. The company was able to cover its losses through price premiums on its regenerative produce, which helped it stay profitable. Nevertheless, the issue highlights food loss as yet another hurdle in scal- ing regenerative agriculture. “That’s a lot of potential loss we need to be think- ing about,” Prezop says. “It’s going to be one of the risks of transitioning, and that’s why a lot [of growers] aren’t im- plementing more regenerative practic- es, because of that financial risk.” WWF calls on buyers to support the regenerative transition through price premiums, which can help offset food loss, long-term contracts, and alternative finance models. But ideally, Prezkop would love to see farmers embrace circularity, a term that simply means making use of every part of the crop instead of letting it go to waste. The idea is gaining traction in the food industry, particularly among some distributors and food manufacturers, Prezkop says. The Upcycled Food Association, which includes members
Almost all participants faced high rates of food loss, though the cause is unclear. Prezkop says she isn’t surprised. Her team expected that some growers might struggle to meet cosmetic standards when adopting regenerative practices. Techniques like cover cropping, reduced tillage, and creating pollinator habitats attract more bugs, which can bruise or scar produce or sneak into the packaged product.
“Organic Produce May Contain Lady Bugs & Friends,” the flyer reads. “To grow
without pesticides and support bee habitats, we apply beneficial bugs to our crops.” Ultimately, Prez- kop and Jones agree that con- sumers need to be part of the change. If shoppers knew
LEVEL OF ADOPTION of SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES vs ROI PERCEPTION
BEHAVIORAL CHANGE
EQUIPMENT CHANGE
PRODUCT CHANGE
100%
what goes into growing sustainable pro- duce and understood the magnitude of food waste and biodiversity loss, they might see minor blemishes — or even a ladybug crawling through their salad — in a new light. “I’d like to think that if consumers knew what the trade-off was, they’d buy an apple that’s slightly less red but tastes just as good, rather than leaving that apple to rot in the field,” Jones says. “We have to be willing to support growers trying to implement these practices. We can’t expect food to look exactly the same as a conventional equivalent. We, as consumers, have to be a little more creative about what good food is.” Visit WORLDWILDLIFE.ORG to learn more.
FERTILIZER APPLICATION BASED ON SOIL-SAMPLING OUTCOMES
80%
REDUCED OR NO TILLAGE
60%
NITROGEN STABILIZERS OR INHIBITORS
SLOW-RELEASE FERTILIZERS
VARIABLE-RATE FERTILIZER APPLICATION
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT (E.G., BUFFER STRIPS, INFILTRATION BASINS) COVER CROPS
40%
CONTROLLED-IRRIGATION PRACTICES
BIOLOGICALS (BIOCONTROLS, BIOFERTILIZERS, OR BIOSTIMULANTS)
20%
TREES IN CROPLAND
EQUIPMENT POWERED BY RENEWABLE FUEL (E.G., NONDIESEL) ON-FARM RENEWABLE-ENERGY GENERATION (SOLAR, WIND, BIOGAS)
like vitamin and supplement brand Garden of Life and premium tea
BIOCHAR AS FERTILIZER
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FARMERS WITH POSITIVE ROI PERCEPTION
152
153
ISSUE 02
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease