b"How Well do Consumers Understand Regenerative Agriculture? For this survey, the term regenerative agriculture was broadly defined as farming methods that improve soil health, carbon capture, improved biodiversity, and healthy water resources.Participants were given examples of regenerative agriculture methods like cover cropping, no-till farming, crop rotation and rotational grazing. Seventy-two percent of respondents said they supported regenerative agriculture. Yet very few of those same respond-ents had much understanding at all about what regenerative ag actually means. A whopping 43% of survey respondents said they were not at all familiar with the term regenerative agricul-ture and an additional 28% said they were only slightly familiarRotational grazing helps grasses recover. with it. About 70% of our sample is either very unfamiliar or totally unfamiliar with regenerative agriculture. More than half of the sample says that they're supportive of a regenerative agriculture. So a bunch of people who don't know what regenerative agricul-ture is say, yeah, I'm supportive of it, Balagtas said. He added that he thinks thats partly due to the publics generally positive perception of farmers. Farmers have a good public image in consumers' eye. So, [theres a consumer attitude of] since regenerative agriculture sounds like something that might be good for farmers, we support it.But Are Consumers Willing to Pay?Regenerative agriculture is good in theory, but someone ultimately has to carry the cost associated with any enhanced inputs or innovation.Lourival Monaco, DIAL research manager. Perceptions of Attribute Importance for Regenerative Agriculture (1 - most important, 7 - least important), Aug. 2024Price sensitivity was reinforced via another set of survey questions. CFI survey participants were divided into two groups. Maintaining affordable food prices 3.1 One group was asked directly if they would pay more for a snack Enhancing soil health 3.7 made with regenerative agriculture. 56% of that group said yes. Reducing water use 4.0 The other group had to choose between two identical snacksIncreasing crop yield 4.0 one produced traditionally and marked with a $5 price tag; the Maintaining profitability for farmers 4.1 other produced via regenerative agriculture practices and priced Reducing greenhouse gas emissions 4.4 at $5.50. In this scenario, 53% chose the cheaper, traditionally Preserving biodiversity 4.8 produced snack. Among those unwilling to pay more, 88% cited the higher 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7price as the main reason, with nearly half expressing support for Weighted Average Rank regenerative agriculture but unwillingness to pay extra.As in past CFDAS surveys, respondents were asked toAnyone but Meallocate points (using a 1 to 7 score where 1 referred to mostMonaco said the price sensitivity results suggest consumers important and 7 referred to not at all important) to specifichave an anyone but me attitude about paying for regenerative food attributes based on their importance when grocery shop- agriculture. ping. Over time, consumers have increasingly prioritized afford- I think that's really interesting because [regenerative agricul-ability over nutrition in the CFI survey, though consumers with ature] is something that people feel mostly positive about, but at college degree tend to value nutrition more, while those with lessthe end of the day, it's really hard for people to put a price tag education prioritize affordability. In this years survey, consumerson it. They [cant access] what is the value to me individually, ranked maintaining food prices as the most important attribute.because it's such a common good.40/ SEEDWORLD.COMFEBRUARY 2025"