Delide Joseph , Cesar Guareschi , Jennifer Ifft , Mathew Sanderson , Megan Hughes , Charles Rice
{"title":"Soil health investment and financial performance of crop farms","authors":"Delide Joseph , Cesar Guareschi , Jennifer Ifft , Mathew Sanderson , Megan Hughes , Charles Rice","doi":"10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104601","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Soil health investments are promoted for their environmental benefits, but evidence on their financial returns for producers remains limited and mixed. This study examines the relationship between soil health practice adoption and farm profitability, while comparing three classification methods used to measure soil health investment intensity. We combine survey-reported soil health practice data with detailed financial records from 438 Kansas commercial crop farms. Three classification strategies are evaluated: (1) an expert-informed agronomic score grounded in regenerative principles, (2) a rule-based threshold system, and (3) a data-driven k-means clustering approach. We estimate ordinary least squares regressions linking these classifications to the net farm income ratio, controlling for farm and weather variables. Additional analyses explore yield and cost mechanisms, and robustness checks include ordered logit models and continuous treatment of adoption intensity. Only the agronomic score classification shows a statistically significant and positive association with profitability (<em>p</em> < 0.05): farms in the high-adoption group earned a 5.6 percentage point higher net farm income ratio than those in the low-adoption group. Other methods showed no significant relationship. The classification method influenced which farms were labeled high adopters, with only 10% consistent across all methods. Soil health practice adoption is modestly associated with improved financial outcomes, but results depend heavily on how adoption is measured. Expert-informed, context-sensitive classification approaches appear more predictive of profitability than rule-based or data-driven alternatives. Directly comparing classification methods to measure soil health investment intensity demonstrates how methodological choices can influence research findings on economic and policy relevance. The study provides actionable insights for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers designing sustainability incentives or certification programs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7730,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Systems","volume":"233 ","pages":"Article 104601"},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Systems","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X25003415","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Soil health investments are promoted for their environmental benefits, but evidence on their financial returns for producers remains limited and mixed. This study examines the relationship between soil health practice adoption and farm profitability, while comparing three classification methods used to measure soil health investment intensity. We combine survey-reported soil health practice data with detailed financial records from 438 Kansas commercial crop farms. Three classification strategies are evaluated: (1) an expert-informed agronomic score grounded in regenerative principles, (2) a rule-based threshold system, and (3) a data-driven k-means clustering approach. We estimate ordinary least squares regressions linking these classifications to the net farm income ratio, controlling for farm and weather variables. Additional analyses explore yield and cost mechanisms, and robustness checks include ordered logit models and continuous treatment of adoption intensity. Only the agronomic score classification shows a statistically significant and positive association with profitability (p < 0.05): farms in the high-adoption group earned a 5.6 percentage point higher net farm income ratio than those in the low-adoption group. Other methods showed no significant relationship. The classification method influenced which farms were labeled high adopters, with only 10% consistent across all methods. Soil health practice adoption is modestly associated with improved financial outcomes, but results depend heavily on how adoption is measured. Expert-informed, context-sensitive classification approaches appear more predictive of profitability than rule-based or data-driven alternatives. Directly comparing classification methods to measure soil health investment intensity demonstrates how methodological choices can influence research findings on economic and policy relevance. The study provides actionable insights for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers designing sustainability incentives or certification programs.
期刊介绍:
Agricultural Systems is an international journal that deals with interactions - among the components of agricultural systems, among hierarchical levels of agricultural systems, between agricultural and other land use systems, and between agricultural systems and their natural, social and economic environments.
The scope includes the development and application of systems analysis methodologies in the following areas:
Systems approaches in the sustainable intensification of agriculture; pathways for sustainable intensification; crop-livestock integration; farm-level resource allocation; quantification of benefits and trade-offs at farm to landscape levels; integrative, participatory and dynamic modelling approaches for qualitative and quantitative assessments of agricultural systems and decision making;
The interactions between agricultural and non-agricultural landscapes; the multiple services of agricultural systems; food security and the environment;
Global change and adaptation science; transformational adaptations as driven by changes in climate, policy, values and attitudes influencing the design of farming systems;
Development and application of farming systems design tools and methods for impact, scenario and case study analysis; managing the complexities of dynamic agricultural systems; innovation systems and multi stakeholder arrangements that support or promote change and (or) inform policy decisions.