7 Tips for Being a Good Capital Partner to Farmers
The 2025 RFSI Forum kicked off again year with a conversation with farmers – the foundation of our food systems and the key to unlocking transition to healthier and more resilient agriculture and food. The conversation featured four diverse farmers working with different crops, at different scales, in different regions of the country – each with different capital needs. Meet our farmers:
- Abianne Falla is the founder of CatSpring Yaupon, producer of regenerative organic yaupon tea – America’s only native caffeine source. The company wild harvests and processes the Yaupon in CatSpring, Texas. As a specialty crop and as a producer, processor, and brand her company seeks funding from a diverse range of partners.
- Matthew Fitzgerald is a second-generation organic grain farmer and founder of FarmFlow. He and his family manage 2,500 acres of certified organic crops in Minnesota under Fitzgerald Organics. Matthew and his operation have worked with several leaders in the regenerative finance and investment space including Mad Capital for debt financing and in partnership with SLM Capital to expand acres under management.
- Gerardo Martinez is a Naval Academy graduate and former Marine Corps Officer, now building Wild Kid Acres – a small regenerative farm outside of Washington, DC – into the first farming franchise. Gerardo’s operation has been entirely self-funded but his new franchise model does seek investors interested in expanding impact through land restoration, regenerative food and communities.
- Landon Plagge is a fourth-generation farmer in Norther Iowa with 25+ years of hands-on farming experience growing commodity grain crops. He farms about 4,000 acres with his family and they are 100% no-till, 100% cover crop and 100% three crop rotation. Landon’s Green Acres Milling is leading the charge to build a $68 million regenerative oat mill in Albert Lea, Minnesota. For the endeavor they need $21 million in equity funding, of which $15 million has been funded by a group of farmers themselves. The $6 million gap remains.
Moderating the conversation, John Kempf of Advancing EcoAgriculture wasted no time getting into the weeds with farmers about what they need from capital partners. Here are some key highlights from what they shared that can serve as powerful tips for capital allocators engaging in this space.
1. Financial Needs Are Context Specific
A central theme that emerged early in the discussion is that each of the four producers – despite all being engaged in regenerative agriculture – faces uniquely different financial needs, priorities, and constraints. These differences stem from the specific characteristics of their operations, their stage in the business lifecycle, and the types of capital partners available in their regions and sectors.
Just as regenerative management must be tailored to the ecological context of each farm, capital strategies must be tailored to the financial context of each operation. A one-size-fits-all approach to financing is unlikely to meet producers where they are or support long-term success. Effective investment in regenerative agriculture requires flexibility, an understanding of operational nuance, and alignment with the realities of each enterprise’s growth trajectory.
2. Adapt Your Expectations to the Realities of Regenerative Ag and Transition
While context varies by operation, some common principles apply broadly across regenerative agriculture—particularly around return expectations and investment timelines. Several speakers noted that even mission-aligned investors often apply conventional return timelines to regenerative projects, which can be mismatched with the long-term nature of ecological and operational transition. As Abianne put it, “Regeneration is inherently a long-term game, and that isn’t always recognized in capital conversations.”
Landon offered a practical example from his regenerative oat model. Farmers are paid a premium to incentivize the shift to a new crop and to help cover real costs, including land and transition expenses. If conventional oats are priced at $3.75 per bushel, his operation may pay $6.50. Of that $2.75 premium:
- $0.75 represents approximately a 15% annual return to investors, which is competitive for the sector.
- The rest – a $2 per bushel premium – is a premium to farmers to incentivize producing a new crop AND help them cover expenses, not the least of which is payment for land.
Yet investors frequently question why the premium is “so high” and often seek to capture more of it—without accounting for the role these payments play in achieving both impact and long-term supply stability.
Abianne also gave an example of being asked to be held to standards for our sustainability but that sometimes these requests don’t make financial sense. For example, CatSpring Yaupon maybe asked measure impacts but the measurement process costs more than the intervention itself. Regenerative agriculture can only be ecologically regenerative if it is economically regenerative. Capital partners should think twice before asking farmers to be inefficient with their capital or to bear more financial risk in order to pad investor’s returns.
3. Prioritize Projects with Clear Market Pathways
Landon and a group of co-investing farmers are developing an oat processing facility in Albert Lea, Minnesota – an investment grounded in strong market fundamentals. The facility is designed to expand market access for domestically produced regenerative oats while reducing transportation costs, creating both economic and operational value.
His guidance to investors is straightforward: focus on opportunities with a defined and scalable market. As he notes, “If we don’t have a market for what we grow, it’s not going to be successful or scalable.” While emerging crops such as hazelnuts and Kernza hold significant regenerative potential, their long-term impact is largely dependent on market demand and infrastructure.
His reminder to investors: enthusiasm for an idea is not a substitute for market viability. As he puts it, “Don’t just pick something because it’s exciting. Sometimes the ‘unsexy’ projects are the ones that ultimately drive meaningful change.”
4. Nimble Capital
Access to land is the biggest challenge for many other farmers. Deal flow is tight. In Matthew’s case, land often sells within 30 days and if an auction pops up it sells in a very tight turnaround or listings are done privately and don’t come to market. This means that farmers who are seeking capital partners for land deals, are often seeking agile investment partners who can execute on this expedited timeline.
5. Multi-Dimensional Capital Partners
“Multi-generational farms are in a war of attrition,” says Matthew. “They will all lose money year after year as long as they survive their neighbor. That compounded with the fact that every system around us wants to reinforce itself – if you want to sell grain, there are only conventional markets. If you want to buy equipment locally, there are only combines for corn and soybeans, I can’t buy a no-till drill. The systems and the balance sheets want to force the system to stay the same.”
So as regenerative farmers like Matthew look for capital, they seek partners who are multi-dimensional. They don’t seek only access to capital and land but access to markets, technical support, and access to other farmers to overcome those barriers.
6. Elevate the Role of the Farmer in Due Diligence
Gerardo offered an important perspective for investors evaluating opportunities in agriculture: the operator matters as much as the operation. Drawing on his experience in mergers and acquisitions prior to becoming a farmer, he shared that roughly 30% of his deal assessment focused on financials, while the remaining 70% centered on the founder. The founder’s vision, credibility, adaptability, and resilience were often the strongest indicators of long-term success.
The same lens applies in agricultural investing. Assessing the farmer’s track record, problem-solving ability, openness to innovation, and capacity to adapt to changing conditions can provide meaningful insight into future performance. Investors should be asking: Does this operator demonstrate strategic thinking? Are they capable of navigating volatility? What does their history suggest about their ability to execute and grow?
7. Embrace Progress Over Perfection
Landon notes that in conversations with prospective funders and investors, there is often an expectation that opportunities should align perfectly with every investment objective. In reality, projects that check every box are still relatively rare in this evolving market. He suggests that waiting for a “perfect” opportunity may result in missed chances to shape and accelerate the field. Allocating to projects that substantially – though not fully – meet an investor’s criteria can be a strategic way to start building exposure and learning. As he puts it, supporting a project that aligns with 75% of your goals can be far more valuable than remaining on the sidelines.
Landon’s comments emphasize the important role of early, pioneering investors who are willing to back promising but not yet fully proven opportunities. These early commitments help establish proof of concept and create the conditions for wider investor participation over time.
Activating Aligned Capital
The conversation made one thing unmistakably clear: investing in regenerative agriculture calls for a grounded, context-aware approach. Producers’ needs vary widely, markets must be real and scalable, and the people operating these businesses matter as much as the numbers behind them. Regeneration also unfolds on longer timelines than conventional models assume, requiring investors to balance financial discipline with patience and flexibility. Progress in the sector will depend on investors willing to move without waiting for perfect alignment, helping demonstrate viable pathways for others to follow.
Sarah Day Levesque is Managing Director at RFSI & Editor of RFSI News. She can be reached here.