Author: Sarah Roderick

Focusing on Resiliency and Profitability in a Corn Field

Posted on by Sarah Roderick

A 288-acre field in central South Dakota carried full input costs every year and lost 10% to 20% of its acres to drown-out in most of them. Wet years ran closer to 25%. 

The ground had yield potential to be productive and resilient but how to get there. 

The producer kept farming it because the field performed when the weather cooperated. Then he priced it a different way: realized return across wet and dry years, instead of yield potential in a good one. 

What the $155-per-acre budget leaves out 

On a clean-year budget, the field pencils at $155 per acre. At 170 bushels and $4.00 corn, that’s $680 per acre in revenue against roughly $525 in inputs. 

That budget assumes every acre reaches harvest. 

By the time standing water shows up, most of the $525 is already spent. Seed’s in the ground, fertilizer and chemical are out, rent’s paid. A drowned acre carries close to full cost and returns nothing, so every lost acre comes straight out of what the surviving acres earned. 

AgSpire gives producers options when corn isn't working.

At 0% drown-out, the field breaks even at $3.09 corn. At 25%, it costs $4.12. Water alone moves the breakeven by a dollar. 

Converting the field to hay 

The operation already ran corn, soybeans, alfalfa, grass hay, cover crops and cattle, so the producer had a use for forage and a market for it on the same balance sheet. 

He seeded all 288 acres to a diverse perennial blend for hay. 

Through AgSpire, the conversion qualified for a $120-per-acre seed incentive and a $40-per-acre cattle premium. That’s $160 per acre in one-time support against establishment costs of roughly $110 per acre: $75 for seed, $35 for planting and rock rolling. 

The incentives covered establishment but whether the change provided profitability long term came down to how the stand produced. 

What happened in year one 

First-year production came in at 1,550 bales at roughly 1,600 pounds each. That’s 1,240 tons, or 4.31 tons and 5.38 bales per acre. At $80 per bale, the crop was worth about $124,000, roughly $100 per ton. 

The stand took no drown-out. 

After seed, fertilizer, planting, rock rolling, rent, haying and baling, and with program payments counted, the field returned about $51,900. That’s $180 per acre. 

Establishment costs and program payments are both one-time items. At the same production level, the established stand projects roughly $130 per acre per year. 

Breakeven on the established stand is 3.75 bales per acre. It made 5.38. Yield can drop by nearly a third before those acres stop covering their costs. 

One year doesn’t settle it 

One season doesn’t validate a cropping change, so we predicted the perennial stand out 5 years against a 3-year corn, 2-year soybean rotation on the same acres to get a better look at the resiliency and profitability of the stand.

AgSpire helps producers give a second look at acres that weren't producing.

Across 5 clean years, the two systems land close. Perennial forage clears the rotation by roughly $10,000 on the whole field, and part of that margin is the one-time program payment. 

This field hasn’t delivered 5 clean years. At its historical 20% drown-out rate, the rotation projects $22,176 over 5 years against $201,900 for forage. That’s a spread of nearly $180,000 on 288 acres. 

Run the math on the acres you actually farm 

At 170-bushel corn and $4.00 per bushel, these acres looked like a $155-per-acre field. Apply the 20% drown-out rate and realized return falls to about $19 per acre. That’s a big different when you are looking at profitability. 

These numbers describe one field. Soil, drainage, market access and forage demand differ on every operation. The problem is what travels: budget problem acres separately from the rest of the field, and run realized return instead of clean-year potential. 

Most operations have ground that sounds like this: a wet spot, a field corner, highly erodible acres, or a quarter that takes full inputs and delivers a full crop only when the weather lines up. Those acres deserve their own math and a different look at how to efficiency plant when looking at profitability and resiliency. 

Got acres that aren’t pulling their weight? Call or text 605.625.7255 or visit AgSpire.com/producers, and we’ll look at what the best option is for your operation. 

 

Additional Links

Want to learn about AgSpire  >>> Click Here 

Want to learn more about what it is like to work with AgSpire>>> Click Here 

Check out Alex’s video about being a lifelong steward>>> Click Here 

Maximizing RCPP Funding: The Case for Partnering on Applications

Posted on by Sarah Roderick

The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) supports the scaling of conservation and regenerative agriculture practices that strengthen farms, ranches, and rural communities. Many of those same practices improve water quality, soil health, biodiversity and long-term productivity, outcomes that companies with agricultural supply chains are increasingly investing in to build resilience and, in some cases, support Scope 3 goals. 

RCPP is built as a public-private partnership. Through the program, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) works with partners to bring conservation funding and technical assistance to producers. 

For companies, that creates an opportunity to stretch private investment further. Corporate goals around supply chain resilience often overlap with RCPP conservation priorities; and RCPP requires significant match from private industry. The challenge is getting from shared goals to a program that works on the ground. 

RCPP applications and implementation require specialized conservation knowledge, producer relationships and systems that most corporate teams were never designed to manage. Building that capacity internally can pull significant time and resources away from the work those teams already own. 

Four challenges tend to stand out: 

  • Local expertise matters. Applications need to connect conservation priorities with practices that make sense for producers in a specific geography. 
  • Application windows move quickly. Building budgets, confirming producer interest, securing partner commitments, and completing an application can put significant pressure on internal teams. 
  • NRCS and corporate requirements do not always align. Conservation practice standards, federal documentation, and corporate reporting requirements serve different purposes. Connecting them requires systems that can support both without creating unnecessary work for producers. 
  • Boots on the Ground are preferred. In the eyes of NRCS, ideal RCPP partners are already managing ongoing processes and approaches in regions of focus for recruitment, enrollment, data collection, technical assistance, practice verification, practice payments, NRCS compliance, and project reporting.  

Technical Expertise Starts at the Field Level 

A strong RCPP application is not simply a list of eligible conservation practices. It has to reflect what producers in that geography can realistically adopt and maintain. 

A practice can meet a state conservation standard and still be a poor fit for the producers it is meant to serve. It may conflict with a crop rotation, lease term, grazing system, or the economics of the operation. 

That is where local knowledge becomes critical. 

A partner working directly with producers can help determine which practices have real demand before the application is submitted. They can also build incentive rates around local establishment costs, custom rates and the production risk producers may take on during the first few seasons. 

Those details matter. If an incentive does not adequately account for the cost and risk of adoption, enrollment may fall short of projections. Even when a practice is adopted, it may not remain in place once the contract ends. 

Long-term success depends on more than getting a producer enrolled. It requires technical assistance that continues through implementation and trusted advisors who understand the operation. 

AgSpire helps producers find new markets and opportunities.

Why Companies Bring in an Outside Team 

RCPP application windows leave little room to build a program from scratch. 

An experienced partner can enter the process with producer interest already established, practice budgets developed, partner contributions mapped out and letters of commitment underway. A team that has worked through an award cycle also knows which pieces can happen simultaneously and which ones tend to slow an application down. 

And receiving an award is only the beginning. 

Once funding is available, the program needs to reach producers and move into implementation. That requires producer recruitment, technical advisors, contracting, practice verification, payment processes, data management, and reporting. 

For a corporate sustainability team, developing that capability internally means learning an entirely different operating system: NRCS conservation practice standards, federal documentation requirements, producer contracting and field-level implementation. Meanwhile, quarterly reporting, supplier engagement, and the team’s other responsibilities do not stop. 

Working with an experienced partner allows the company to stay focused on the decisions only it can make: its goals, funding commitment, priority geographies and desired supply chain outcomes. The partner can then translate those priorities into a program producers can actually use. 

AgSpire helps cattle producers with new markets for their operations.

Maximizing a Company’s Investment in the Agriculture Supply Chain 

One of RCPP’s biggest advantages is the ability to pair public and private investment. 

When the two work together, a company’s dollars can reach more producers and support more conservation than private funding may be able to accomplish on its own. But maximizing that opportunity requires designing the program so federal requirements, corporate goals and producer needs work together from the beginning. 

That is especially important when it comes to corporate sustainability outcomes. 

NRCS documentation is designed to show that a conservation practice was implemented according to an established standard. A company tracking progress toward supply chain goals may need different data, measurements, quantifications, accounting approaches, verification exercises, protocol checks, and reporting preparation at the operation, field or herd level to truly generate corporate-aligned outcomes. 

The requirements may be different, but much of that information comes from the same place: the producer. 

A well-designed program can reduce duplication by building those needs into a single enrollment and implementation process. A producer should not have to provide the same information multiple times simply because two funding partners use it differently. 

The same principle applies to conservation practice design. Meeting NRCS standards is essential, but successful implementation also depends on understanding how those standards translate to a working farm or ranch. Teams with technical conservation expertise and firsthand agricultural experience can bridge that gap, helping build programs that satisfy program requirements without losing sight of what producers can realistically implement. 

That is ultimately where partnership creates the most value. RCPP can bring significant public resources into agricultural supply chains, but funding alone does not create impact. The program still has to work for the producer on the other side of the application. 

Learn More About How AgSpire Can Help 

AgSpire brings together agricultural, conservation and corporate sustainability expertise with experience designing and implementing privately and publicly funded programs across the United States. 

We help partners move from supply chain goals to programs that work in the field, from application development and program design through producer enrollment, technical assistance, implementation and reporting. 

To learn more about partnering with AgSpire on RCPP opportunities, call or text 605.625.7255 or email info@agspire.com. 

 

Additional Links

Want to learn about AgSpire  >>> Click Here 

Ag Retailers have what CPGs Need. Here’s What’s Missing>>> Click Here 

Producer Profile: A South Dakota Farm Built on Stewardship

Posted on by Sarah Roderick

By Lura Roti for AgSpire

In the Boekelheide farm shop, a mission statement hangs on the wall above semitrucks and combines.

It reads: “Stewardship – Be stewards of our land, resources, people, friends, community and our faith. Leaving everything in a better way than we found it.”

A matching banner hangs in the air-conditioned room above where everyone on the farm team gathers for dinner each day.

AgSpire helps work with producers to promote stewardship

“We wanted a reminder for ourselves and the team we work with of “the why” – why we do what we do. Because whether you’re servicing something in the shop or making a big decision in the office, those fundamentals are the same,” said Alex Boekelheide, 33, of the farm mission he, his wife, Jenna and parents, Mark and Diane, crafted a few years after he returned home from Lake Area Technical College to farm fulltime.

For the Boekelheide family, their focus on stewardship does not compromise profit.

“We work to do things for the overall good of the land, our environment and wildlife. And ultimately, we run our farm as a business – to be profitable and provide for our family,” Boekelheide said. “We don’t lose sight of profitability, because you can have the healthiest soil in the world, but if you aren’t driving a profit from the acre, and you lose the farm because you didn’t do the right things, then you’re not being a steward of your resources.”

The Northville, South Dakota farmer further explained the strategy he and Mark deploy with their team when making field management decisions.

“We take a blended approach, making sure conservation practices are at the forefront and balancing out what we have to do to be a profitable business,” Boekelheide said. “A big piece of this is taking a three, to five, to 10-year approach instead of just a one-to-two-year approach. This bigger picture approach helps us focus on what the land is telling us.”

AgSpire promotes stewardship in programs

Listening to the land leads to diverse crop rotation

Located on the flatlands of the James River Valley, since the 2000’s the Boekelheide family primarily raised corn and soybeans on the farm their ancestors farmed more than a century ago.

But expanding saline patches was their lands’ way of telling them it was time to change up the two-crop system and add diversity to their corn and soybean rotation.

“We knew we needed a more robust rotation to use up the water because soybeans do not use water efficiently. And we are so flat, there’s limited natural runoff,” Boekelheide said. “We’d had a few extremely wet years and when water just sits on the surface, instead of infiltrating the soil profile, it evaporates and leaves salt behind and as the saline accumulates, over time nothing can grow.”

Seeking advice, Boekelheide reached out to one of his Lake Area Technical College instructors, Jim Clendenin. Clendenin connected him with a resource team that included farmer-members of the South Dakota Soil Health Coalition.

Sitting around a large table in the machine shop, they developed a field management plan that involved no-till/minimal tillage, adding oats followed by cover crops to a percentage of the farm’s corn and soybean rotation and implementing a five-year plan to rehabilitate the saline areas:

  • Year 1 – plant to saline tolerant grasses
  • Year 2 – leave alone
  • Year 3 – hay
  • Year 4 – leave alone
  • Year 5 – hay
  • Year 6 – re-introduce into a four-crop rotation of corn, soybeans, oats and cover crops

During the early phases of establishing their management plan, Boekelheide and Mark attended the three-day Soil Health School.

“What we learned was eye opening. It helped us shift our mindset, because what we thought we were doing right, in terms of field management, was actually making the water infiltration problem worse,” Boekelheide said. “It helped us develop not only a resilient cropping system, but a resilient mindset.”

AgSpire works with producers to promote regenerative practices

Creating a resilient cropping system for the next generation

As a fifth-generation farmer with two young children, resilience is top of mind for Boekelheide. “There’s a lot of pressure, because through the leadership of previous generations, the farm weathered all the storms. I don’t want to be the generation to hand a set of problems off to the next generation. I want to hand off a farm that is thriving.”

He reflects on the 1980s Farm Crisis his family navigated.

“My dad tells about the conversation at the kitchen table when the banker told them to sell out,” Boekelheide said. “Instead, they buckled down and got creative to do whatever they could do to generate revenue to pay the bills.”

Growing up in the shadow of this challenging era, emphasized the importance to Boekelheide of having a great understanding of the operation’s financial position so decisions can be made that minimize risk. And because most risk management options are connected to corn and soybeans, he began looking for a way to make raising oats cashflow.

“Changing the crop rotation is uncomfortable because our crop insurance system is focused on corn and soybeans, so there isn’t the typical risk protection. And unlike corn and soybeans, unless you have wheat, there isn’t a robust local market for other small grains,” Boekelheide said. “But we kind of reached a point with the expanding saline areas in our fields where we realized that we had more at risk by not making any changes.”

He reached out to a few seed dealerships and began raising seed oats on contract.

It was a seed dealership who connected him with AgSpire, an organization that provides crop and livestock producers with access to practical incentives to help with technical advice and costs associated with a wide range of regenerative agriculture and conservation practices.

Based on his field management practices that promote soil health, and the farm’s goals, Boekelheide decided to enroll in AgSpire’s Covering America program. Through the program, he receives a premium on top of his contracted rate for each bushel of oats he sells as seed. And he receives a $35 per-acre seed incentive payment on every crop acre he enrolls in the program and plants to a cover crop at some point during the growing season.

The Covering America program is only a one-year commitment. AgSpire’s Senior Conservation Agronomist, Derek Ver Helst visited Boekelheide’s farm to review his conservation practices and help him with the paperwork.

“There are tremendous people within the organization that genuinely want to help you succeed,” Boekelheide said. “We had a great opportunity to partner with AgSpire to receive incentive dollars and with the one-year contract, I maintain 100 percent control and flexibility over every acre. We know we need to do these things for the long run. It’s nice to have a program that helps assist us to minimize the risk because farming is a high input, high output industry and the margins are thin.”

To learn more about the Boekelheide farm, watch the video below:

 

 

VIDEO

Hear from Alex

For fifth-generation South Dakota farmer Alex Boekelheide, the family motto is simple: leave everything better than you found it. But that is harder said than done. In this short video, Alex shares how AgSpire’s programs offered support and incentives to promote his operation.

Link to Video

Ag Retailers Have What CPGs Need. Here’s What’s Missing.  

Posted on by Sarah Roderick

Ag retailers already have what many consumer packaged goods (CPGs) companies are looking for: trusted producer relationships, technical expertise and a pathway to practice adoption. The challenge isn’t building those relationships or getting producers to adopt sustainable practices. It’s turning them into programs that deliver credible, reportable outcomes companies can confidently invest in. 

Farmers across the country want to plant cover crops, reduce tillage, and restore native grasses. The upfront cost makes it hard to act on that. The transition cuts into profits before it improves them, and most producers don’t have the capital to absorb it on their own. As one farmer put it at a recent Food & Beverage forum panel: “Farmers take the majority of the risk and have little control over things like weather and markets.” And the numbers back that up, in a 2024 McKinsey survey found that only a third of U.S. farmers view cover crop ROI positively, and fewer than 60% say the same about reduced-till or no-till. Making it very difficult for farmers to want and make the initial investment without knowing there is a long-term support system helping them financially.  

Retail ag companies are already working with producers who want to move toward sustainable practices. They have the farmer relationships, the agronomic expertise, and the day-to-day influence over which practices actually get adopted. The challenge is helping the producers they work with find funding to offset the cost of change. 

AgSpire connects the supply chain with real solutions.

The Disconnect 

CPGs and food companies are exposed in the field, and they know it. The crops they buy are getting harder to source reliably as weather volatility hits yields, and the practices that build sustainable and resilient also steady the supply they depend on. That resilience case now sits alongside the emissions one. Scope 3 commitments are still in place, and Scope 3 can account for up to 95% of a food company’s total carbon footprint. But the harder problem is proximity; most companies lack a direct line to the farms in their supply chain. CDP data shows that as of 2022, 1 in 4 food companies disclosing Scope 3 emissions had no primary supply-chain data at all. 

That leaves two sides that should fit together; on one side, retailers working with producers who are changing practices in the field. And the other, CPGs with a Scope 3 target and the appetite to invest in programs that deliver outcomes and can scale. What retailers wrestle with is turning what they do with farmers into something a CPG sustainability or procurement team will fund. Additionally, CPGs can’t easily evaluate programs they didn’t build and can’t verify. 

What it Takes to Close the Gap 

Most retailers can handle the technical assistance and enrollment themselves. Where they get stuck is turning that interventions into a claimable outcome; a company can actually use toward their sustainability commitments. That comes down to three approaches most programs often underestimate. 

The first is quantification: how you generate a defensible emissions estimate for the producers in your program. Model selection, soil sampling design, and monitoring choices all shape the number, and they have to hold up across mixed soils, crops, and lease arrangements, not just in a controlled research trial. 

The second is accounting: how you turn that quantified impact into an outcome a corporate can use. The same result has to fit into a Scope 3 inventory, inform what producers get paid, and show whether the program is working. Baselines and boundaries decide whether it holds together under scrutiny. 

The third is protocol: which standards, verification requirements, and contract terms you follow to make the claim credible, and which you set aside because they aren’t practical on the ground. Get it wrong in either direction, and the program either can’t be defended or promoted. 

Together, these three decide whether a program produces a claim an upstream customer will pay for. Peer-reviewed field data consistently shows that introducing cover crops reduces emissions at scale. Getting from that signal to a verified, reportable outcome is where most retailers get stuck, and it’s the piece they rarely have the infrastructure to build alone. 

AgSpire bridges the gap between corporate sustainability goals and on the ground results.

How to Make that Next Step  

Retailers are already doing the hard part every day, standing behind the producers who count on them through the transition. The missing piece is the structure that turns that work into something an upstream customer will fund. That’s usually where an advisor who understands both the agronomy and what a corporate needs to hit its Scope 3 goals earns their place. 

Before you take a program to a CPG, it’s worth knowing where it stands on quantification, accounting, and protocol. That’s the work we do with ag retailers. If you’re sizing up what you’ve built, let’s see where AgSpire fits. Reach out today, call/text 605.625.7255 or email info@agspire.com  

 

SOURCES: 

Statistics sourced from McKinsey (2024), WBCSD (2025), and CDP (2022). 

 

Additional Links

Want to learn more about AgSpire services? >>> Services

 

What Waiting Could Be Costing Your Operation

Posted on by Sarah Roderick

Every producer has a list of ideas they’d like to put into action when the timing feels right. Maybe it’s trying a new grazing strategy, improving a pasture, exploring cost-share opportunities or making a change that could strengthen the operation for years to come. 

Waiting is understandable. Farming and ranching require thoughtful decisions, and there are always competing priorities for your time and resources. 

But waiting has a cost, too. 

Every season brings opportunities to improve your operation. When those opportunities pass, they often take potential savings, funding and long-term benefits with them. The good news? Progress doesn’t require changing everything at once. It starts with one conversation and one practical step. 

AgSpire helps producers with technical assistance and herd improvements

The Cost of Waiting 

Missed Funding Opportunities, cost-share programs, pilot projects and conservation funding all operate on enrollment windows. Once those opportunities close, so do the financial resources that could help offset investments in your operation. 

For many producers, these programs make it easier to implement practices that may have otherwise remained on the wish list. 

As Ranching for the Future participant Jesse Hohm shared: 

“There might be some things you want to start, and they don’t quite pencil out in your bottom line, but the financial incentives AgSpire offers can tip the balance where it makes more sense in your operation. It’s a small payment for doing something that’s good for your operation. The programs are very producer-focused on what practices they recommend.” 

Delayed Improvements, healthy soils, productive pastures and resilient grazing systems aren’t built overnight. Every growing season is an opportunity to improve water infiltration, increase forage production and strengthen the long-term productivity of your land. 

The earlier you begin, the sooner those improvements can start working for your operation. 

Missed Opportunities to Build Resilience, no one can predict the next drought, flood or extreme weather event. But producers can take steps today that help prepare their operations for tomorrow. 

Whether it’s improving grazing management, strengthening soil health or evaluating new conservation practices, small changes made over time can create a more resilient operation that’s better equipped to adapt to changing conditions. 

Progress Starts with Practical Solutions 

Making changes doesn’t have to mean overhauling your operation. At AgSpire, we believe the best solutions are the ones that fit your goals, your land and the way you manage your business. 

That’s why our programs are designed to be: 

Producer-Centric: Every recommendation starts with your operation, not a one-size-fits-all approach. 

As Ranching for the Future participant Randy Nelson explains: 

“Just talk to them and see what options work for you. They’ll walk you through the programs and help you pick the best fit and what steps can make the process easier.” 

Focused on Practical Results: Whether your goal is improving grazing management, strengthening soil health or accessing new funding opportunities, we focus on solutions that deliver value on your operation. 

Grounded in Agriculture: More than 90% of the AgSpire team has firsthand agricultural experience. We understand the realities of farming and ranching because we’ve lived them ourselves. 

The First Step Is a Conversation 

You don’t have to change everything this season. 

You don’t have to have all the answers. 

You just have to be willing to explore what’s possible. 

Whether you’re looking for cost-share opportunities, considering a new grazing strategy or wondering what programs might fit your operation, our team is here to help. 

The producers who see the greatest long-term success rarely change everything overnight. They take one practical step, learn from the results and continue building from there. 

Ready to see what’s possible for your operation? Fill out the contact form below and start the conversation with an AgSpire Advisor today. 

Additional links 

Learn more about how AgSpire’s has supported ranchers with funding opportunities and technical assistance >>> Farm Progress

Learn more about AgSpire’s programs >>> Programs 

Why One Size Doesn’t Fit All in Sustainability

Posted on by Sarah Roderick

When a company launches an agricultural sustainability program, the instinct is understandable: study it, adapt it, and move fast. In agriculture supply chains especially, where companies often source the same commodity from an overlapping supply shed, the logic seems right. If it worked for them, it should work for us. 

The reality is, it usually doesn’t. A Bain & Company survey of more than 300 large companies found that 98% of sustainability programs fail to achieve or exceed expectations. That number is striking on its own. What it obscures is more important: most of those programs weren’t poorly executed — they were poorly designed for the organization running them.

The reason programs fail to deliver real results or scale isn’t random. It comes down to a frequently seen mismatch: the visible features of a peer’s program look similar enough to borrow, while the internal conditions that made it work stay invisible.  

The hidden constraints that split programs apart 

Two companies can source beef from the same region, share very similar Scope 3 emissions profiles, and still need very different programs. The visible inputs may look alike, but the underlying business drivers and constraints often diverge sharply. 

The factors that most shape what a program should look like are rarely the ones featured in a case study. Every company brings its own mix of priorities, the standards and protocols they’re aligned to, investor relations pressures, supply chain de-risking goals, and customer expectations on both the consumer and B2B side. Layer in the realities of agriculture itself, and those priorities ultimately determine what a program needs to deliver, and on what timeline. 

No two programs should look alike, because no two companies, their customers, or their constraints ever truly are. 

Below that strategic layer, operational constraints pull programs further apart: 

Risk tolerance. Some organizations have a higher tolerance for the uncertainty inherent in programs, where results take time to materialize, and early-stage data is directional rather than definitive. Others need defensible numbers on a shorter horizon. The right verification approach is entirely different for each. 

Existing supplier relationships. A company with direct relationships and high traceability in their supply-shed can design a very different engagement model than one that operates in an untraceable and segregated supply chain.  The engagement approach that generates enrollment in one scenario creates friction in the other. 

Internal capacity. A 2025 MIT survey of sustainability professionals found that 39% of companies cite limited internal expertise as a top barrier to Scope 3 work, and 32% cite the high cost of measurement tools. A program designed around the assumption of robust internal capacity will stall in organizations that don’t have it, regardless of how well it worked elsewhere. 

AgSpire helps build programs to improve supply chains.

What’s actually flexible, and what companies don’t realize they can adapt 

The instinct to copy a peer’s program often assumes that major structural decisions, like the MRV platform used, or the use of an MRV platform, the protocols used, the supply chain engagement model, the funding structure, are fixed requirements rather than design choices. They’re not. More of a program’s design is adaptable than most corporate sustainability teams realize. 

Verification approach, producer engagement strategy, how a program is funded, and how rigorous outcomes are quantified can all be calibrated to what a company’s specific business objectives are. One area where many teams find themselves at a crossroads is MRV. It’s worth keeping in mind that platform vendors naturally have an incentive to promote more complex solutions,  and the idea that more rigorous quantification is always the better choice can be easy to absorb, especially when it seems like what others in the space are doing. But the right level of precision is determined by what your unique reporting obligations require, not by what someone else chose. 

Adding unnecessary complexity disguised as rigor without a clear business reason is one of the most common ways a program becomes too expensive to sustain and scale. 

Program design has to start with your own variables 

The companies that generate real outcomes and build scalable agricultural sustainability programs tend to share a common starting point: a strong awareness of their own situation before looking at what anyone else has done. What is the commodity of focus? What reporting obligations are we operating under today, and where are those likely to go? What does our supply chain make feasible? What is the budget available? What are the KPI’s or metrics most relevant to internal stakeholders?  

That process takes longer than adapting a template. It also produces something a template can’t: a program designed specifically to what the organization can actually deliver and build over time. Of all the companies that have now set validated science-based targets globally, very few have FLAG targets that directly address agricultural supply chain emissions. The gap isn’t a reflection of low intent. It reflects how hard it is to design agricultural programs that genuinely fit the organization behind them, and the cost of finding out too late that a borrowed design doesn’t. 

The question worth asking before adopting someone else’s program architecture is not whether it worked for them. It’s whether the conditions that made it work for them exist in your organization. More often than not, the honest answer is not entirely. That gap is where program design should begin. 

AgSpire builds programs to improve cattle operations

If you’re asking these questions, you’re already ahead 

Most sustainability teams reach the program design stage already carrying a version of these questions. They’re the right ones to ask, and they don’t have to be answered alone. 

What does this program actually need to produce for our business, and are we designing that, or for what was common practice somewhere else? 

Do our internal reporting timelines and leadership expectations match the way this program is structured? 

How can we better serve our consumers? What would they like to see?  

Are we buying more measurement complexity than our reporting obligations actually require? 

Is our supply chain engagement model built for how we operate today, or borrowed from one that looks similar on paper? 

Are there funding mechanisms and program structures available to us that we haven’t considered because no one has surfaced them? 

A good program designer doesn’t hand you a template. They work through these questions with you and build a program around what comes out of them. That’s the difference between a program that fits your organization and one that fits someone else’s. 

Sources: Bain & Company sustainability program survey (300+ companies); MIT State of Supply Chain Sustainability Report, 2025; Science Based Targets initiative, 2026; Deloitte / 3Degrees scope 3 analysis for food and beverage manufacturers; WBCSD Scope 3 MRV Guidance for Agriculture and Food. 

Additional Links

Want to read more about AgSpire Programs? >>> Click Here 

Want to learn more about our services? >>> Click Here 

CRP Acres Are Coming Out: What to do Next?

Posted on by Sarah Roderick

Across the Northern Plains, a lot of CRP acres are hitting the end of their contracts. South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, producers are asking a similar question: 

Do you Re-Enroll, or do you Put That Ground Back to Work?

There’s no one-size answer. It comes down to what the land can do and what you want out of it. 

What CRP still does well: 

  • CRP is simple. That’s its biggest advantage. 
  • You get a fixed payment. No management decisions once it’s established.  
  • On the higher end, Continuous CRP can still pencil strong. If your ground qualifies, you’re looking at competitive payments. 
  • For marginal acres, that’s hard to beat. 

Where Producers are Taking a Harder Look 

When it comes to medium to high producing acres, other options need to be considered. 

General CRP payments in much of the Plains land in the $45–$75 per acre range. That can pencil out. But it also means the land is largely parked most years. 

CRP does allow grazing or haying, typically once every three years under managed conditions. But it’s not something you can rely on annually or build your operation around. 

At the same time, cattle prices are strong. That changes how producers look at feed and forage. Every ton of forage you can grow yourself carries more value than it did a few years ago.  

With around 1.5 million acres coming out of CRP in September 2026, more producers are starting to look at what those acres could do instead. 

AgSpire helps producers get crops in the ground

What Changes When Land Goes Back into Forage 

When perennial forage is established and managed, it generates feed for cattle while improving soil health. 

That shows up in a few ways on real operations: 

  • Lower feed costs  
  • More productive land over time  
  • More total forage available across the operation  
  • More control over how the operation runs  

When cattle prices are high, that feed value matters even more. You’re not just growing grass. You’re supporting revenue on the livestock side. 

Where Programs Come into Play 

Programs like AgSpire’s Grass is Greener are built around that idea. Helping producers bring acres back into production in a way that works on real operations. 

Producers who enroll in the Grass is Greener program receive an incentive at the time of seeding: $200/ac for grass or $120/ac for forage planting.  

There’s reimbursement shortly after verification, along with technical support to help get the stand established right. 

From there, it’s up to the producer. Graze it. Hay it. Manage it in a way that fits the operation. 

The Tradeoffs 

This isn’t a perfect apples-to-apples comparison. 

CRP requires no upfront cost; GIG does but you’re reimbursed within 90 days. CRP is also predictable. GIG depends on how well you use the forage. That’s the trade. 

We’ve heard from many producers who are thinking about what to do – and consistently hearing:  

  • Lower productivity acres are likely to stay in CRP 
  • Acres with forage and grazing potential are going into programs like Grass is Greener 

And a growing number of producers are looking for ways to keep the land productive and taking advantage of high cattle prices by increasing on-farm forage and grass.  

The Bottom Line.  

CRP pays for stability – with limited use.  

 Working land pays when it’s managed well and used consistently.  

The right decision depends on what your acres can do, and whether you want them sitting or working for your operation and cattle. 

The Numbers.  

In the table below, we compare CRP and working land enrolled in a program like Grass is Greener over a 5-year period using conservative assumptions to show how returns stack up depending on how the acres are used. The analysis was based on the following – CRP assumes an annual payment of $60/ac with no additional revenue, working land assumes a $200/ac establishment cost, offset by a $200/ac (grass) incentive, and generates $75–$125/ac/year in forage value over a 5-year stand. 

Category  CRP (General / Continuous blended assumption)  Working Land (Forage – Grass is Greener type program) 
Upfront Cost  $0  ~$150–$250/ac (seed + establishment) 
Incentive / Payment  $60/ac/year (avg) 

$ 

 $200/ac (one-time incentive – grass) 
Forage Value  $0  $75–$125/ac/year (grazing or hay value) 
Total 5-Year Revenue  ~$300/ac  ~$575–$825/ac 
Net (after costs)  ~$300/ac  ~$400–$650/ac 
Flexibility  None (no grazing/haying)  Full (graze, hay, adapt yearly) 
Labor / Management  Minimal  Moderate 
Best Fit  Marginal acres  Productive forage ground 

Additional Links

Want to read about Pasture Conversion? >>> Click Here 

Want to learn more about AgSpire and our programs? >>> Click Here 

Pasture Conversion: Overrun to Production

Posted on by Sarah Roderick

Part 2

By Derek Ver Helst, Senior Conservation Agronomist, AgSpire

We’re back with Part 2 of Pasture Conversion: Overrun to Production – a first-hand account from Derek Ver Helst, Senior Conservation Agronomist with AgSpire, who worked with a producer in 2025 to turn a 5-acre pasture overrun with smooth brome into a productive native tallgrass prairie with trees and pollinator habitat. 

AgSpire heads producers convert pastures

The Growth

On August 18, 2025, Derek went back to the pasture to record the progress and make any adjustments to the plan.  

The 2025 growing season was very wet. We received above average rainfall in the northern great plains, for most of the summer, which created ideal conditions for a diverse, native planting. Cooler-than-normal temperatures prolonged germination and slowed early season growth.  Early in the season, many producers in the area questioned whether germination had been successful.  

As the summer progressed, soil activity and plant life responded quickly.  The rains continued, creating idea conditions for germination and growth of the many different species that were planted.  

After returning to the field, expectations of a good stand were quickly exceeded. The multispecies planting had taken hold tremendously and the area was teeming with life.  Birds, bees, crickets, snakes, deer, rabbits and more were all using this little piece of paradise.   

AgSpire helps producers put in pollinator habitats.

The Progress

Initial concerns around erosion, due to both heavy rainfall and field slope, did not materialize. The practices used meant no gully erosions occurred, and the topsoil stayed where it was intended.  Forbs and grasses established vigorously, to the point that surrounding trees required trimming to ensure adequate light. A field walk confirmed the successful establishment of many of the species planted earlier in the spring. 

It’s important to note these results are not typical.  Favorable weather conditions by mother nature played a significant role in the outcome and contributed to why these practices worked so well.  Native plantings normally take a couple years to fully establish and reach their full potential.  

It’s off to a strong start, and there’s a lot to build on from here. Next steps will focus on how the stand continues to develop, supporting soil health, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat.  

 

Additional Links

Want to read part one? >>> Click Here 

Want to learn more about AgSpire and our programs? >>> Click Here 

Meet The Author

Senior Conservation Agronomist

About the Author

Derek serves as Senior Conservation Agronomist at AgSpire, where he works with producers and partners to advance practical conservation and regenerative agriculture strategies. With more than 15 years of experience designing and managing agricultural research trials, he specializes in integrating soil health, crop production, and environmental stewardship. Derek holds a bachelor’s degree in Biology from South Dakota State University and a master’s degree in Agronomy from Iowa State University, and is a Certified Crop Advisor (CCA) and NRCS Technical Service Provider (TSP). 

Pasture Conversion: Overrun to Production

Posted on by Sarah Roderick

Part 1

By Derek Ver Helst, Senior Conservation Agronomist, AgSpire

AgSpire helps producers implement conservation practices on their operations through various, voluntary, incentive-based programs. When learning about the programs, producers will ask about the viability of the practices, their potential economic impact, and if the changes can realistically be implemented on their own operations.

Background

We know firsthand there are many trials and tribulations with changing practices in an operation. During the 2025 growing season, Derek Ver Helst, Senior Conservation Agronomist with AgSpire worked with a producer who wanted to convert a 5-acre pasture that had been overrun with smooth brome. The field is a small triangle section of pasture that the producer wants to square off. The goal was to convert the pasture back to native tall grass prairie, add trees for wildlife habitat, and introduce native flowers for pollinator habitat.

Over the course of the summer, Derek documents the progress in the hopes of inspiring and providing ideas for projects anyone can undertake on their own operation. This is the first series that will document progress throughout the season, and will focus on field preparation, planting, germination, and maintenance.

Field Preparation

The first step in the process was prepping fields for planting. The producer sprayed 9 ounces per acre of Plateau along with 32 oz per acre of glyphosate. Class Act Ng, a combination of Nonionic surfactant and Ammonium sulfate, was added to the tank at application to assist in the application. In most cases, glyphosate would be the only chemical used, but smooth brome is developing a resistance to glyphosate (a whole other complex issue). Plateau was added to the mix to help control the cool season smooth brome.

With the combination of chemicals in the tank mix, the producer got a burndown of the field without residual chemical effects on the native seed being planted. It is important to note that if this field had more broadleaf weeds a chemical such as 2,4-D would have been needed to control the unwanted species. When making a native seed plant, it is important to eliminate all competition from undesirable species so that seeds can thrive. But with the use of 2,4-D there is a residual left in the soil that can damage native seeds, and prohibit germination, if not plant outside a 10-day plant back period.

AgSpire works with producers to boost their operation

The photo, taken by Derek, shows the field after it had been sprayed, planted with the native seed mix, and tree rows planted. The season started dry but got good precipitation after the plantings.

 

 

About the Author

Senior Conservation Agronomist

AgSpire Launches Texas Better Beef Program

Posted on by Sarah Roderick

Texas — AgSpire, a company that designs and implements producer-focused agricultural programs, has launched the Texas Better Beef Program, a new program designed to support cow-calf and stocker operations across Texas with technical expertise and financial incentives aimed at improving ranch productivity and grazing management. 

Now enrolling producers for 2026, the voluntary program connects Texas cattle producers with one-on-one technical support from AgSpire experts and financial assistance tied to operational improvements. The program focuses on helping ranchers strengthen grazing efficiency, improve herd productivity, and enhance long-term ranch resilience. 

Participating producers work directly with AgSpire advisors to evaluate their operations and develop customized management plans. Producers enrolled in the program implement at least two grazing or herd productivity practices that align with their existing management goals while supporting improved land and cattle performance. 

AgSpire works with farmers to promote regenerative practices

Financial incentives are available to participating operations based on the number and intensity of practice changes related to improvements in grazing efficiency and herd productivity. 

The Texas Better Beef Program is open to cow-calf and stocker operations managing 30 or more head of cattle and at least 30 grazing acres. Participating producers commit to a 1-year program commitment and allow soil sampling and operational data collection to help track progress and support continuous improvement over time. 

By connecting producers with practical expertise and incentive opportunities, the program aims to strengthen ranch profitability while improving the long-term productivity and resilience of grazing lands. 

Producers interested in learning more about eligibility or enrollment can visit AgSpire.com