is projected to generate $2.5 billion in revenue, to create the next $2.5 billion and reach $5 billion overall. For modeling purposes, it is reasonable to assume that $5 billion to $6 billion in additional investment capital would be sufficient. That leads to the next questions: Where will the money come from, and how should it be deployed? I have been examining both potential capital sources and opportunities to reallocate spending from existing programs into agtech automation. In that process, I identified several programs that rely on weak metrics or do not adequately measure success or failure. The three major areas for potential reallocation are climate- smart funding, regenerative agriculture practice payments and federal economic development grants. Let’s examine each of those areas. First, there’s the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Climate-Smart Agriculture Funding program, which represents $19.5 billion and is designed to expand existing conservation programs through the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The funding supports payments for practices intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve soil carbon, reduce nitrogen losses or sequester carbon. Major spending categories include: (1) $8.5 billion for cost- share practice payments through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP); (2) $5 billion for regional partner- led conservation projects through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), including nonprofit and university partnerships; (3) $3.3 billion for multi-year conservation
stewardship contracts; (4) $1.4 billion for wetlands easements through the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP); and (5) $1 billion for conservation technical assistance. While there is clear demand for the program—which should not be surprising given that it is a government subsidy—it provides what I would characterize as limited climate accounting while offering little improvement to grower economics. Success metrics are primarily based on carbon sequestration and funding deployment. The program is already being modified to allow broader funding reallocations. Much of this funding would be better directed toward subsidizing grower automation purchases. Many climate-smart agriculture programs are positioned as efforts to improve farm economics. In practice, however, many of these programs do not establish or measure grower success metrics at either baseline or incremental performance levels, and those measures are rarely used in evaluating program outcomes. The impact of automation spending can be measured more directly through labor outcomes, grower economics and job creation, creating a more concrete framework for assessing economic development results. Second, let’s look at the USDA Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, a 2022 Pilot Grant Program which is going to spend $3.1 billion on 141 projects for: (1) technical and financial aid to farmers; (2) monitoring, reporting and verification; and (3) market development (premiums for “climate smart” products). The Trump Administration reframed the program as “farmer first”
Biologicals without the guesswork.
Proof Points
Built for high-value vegetable and specialty crops Designed for tight planting windows Measured in stand, cartons, and packout
Applied at planting. Measured at harvest.
Seed Edge Ag helps vegetable and specialty crop growers use biologicals with more confidence: a vetted biological program, application at planting, and side-by-side field results you can review before scaling across acres.
See the trial snapshots. Scan or visit SeedEdge.Ag
Trial Snapshots
Untreated Tomato
Treated Tomato
SeedEdge.Ag
Trial images shown. Results vary by crop, field conditions, treatment program, and management. Scan for details.
23 Western Grower & Shipper | www.wga.com July – September 2026
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator