Food Companies Buying Farmland to Grow Organic: Nature’s Path and the Push to Close the Organic Supply Gap

When a popular organic cereal company announced it had bought thousands of acres of farmland and would convert them to organic production, it made news because food companies rarely farm. Most buy ingredients from suppliers and focus on brands and manufacturing. But organic food makers faced a growing problem: demand for organic products was rising faster than the supply of organic farmland, forcing companies to compete for limited organic grain or import it from overseas.

The company, Nature’s Path, became one of several food businesses and partners to invest directly in organic farmland and in helping farmers transition. This article examines why the organic supply gap exists, how companies have responded, what research shows about organic farming’s environmental and economic performance, and what these efforts mean for farmers and consumers in 2026.

Why Did a Cereal Company Become a Farmer?

In 2014, Nature’s Path, a family-owned organic cereal company based in British Columbia, purchased 2,760 acres in northern Montana, bringing its total farmland to 5,640 acres after earlier purchases of two farms in Saskatchewan in 2008. The company said it aimed to increase organic acreage, ensure the purity of its ingredients, and attract and train a new generation of organic farmers. It partnered with Montana organic farmers Doug Crabtree and Anna Jones-Crabtree of Vilicus Farms to manage the land and support new farmers.

KQED reported that the company described the investment as a response to market realities: with organic demand rising, companies dependent on organic grain risked having to import supplies if domestic organic farmland did not expand. Much of the wheat, oats, Kamut, and spelt grown on the farms was used in the company’s products. Later, the company’s founder bought about 5,000 acres in Saskatchewan from a retiring organic farmer, along with 1,600 acres of conventional land placed immediately into the 36-month transition to organic certification, citing the need to keep organic land in production as farmers retire.

Why Is There an Organic Supply Gap?

Organic food sales in the United States reached $76.6 billion in 2025, about 6 percent of all food sales, according to the Organic Trade Association, but certified organic farmland makes up only around 1 percent of U.S. cropland. The gap is filled partly by imports, especially of organic corn, soybeans, and other grains used for animal feed, which supports organic dairy, eggs, and meat. Farmers face several barriers to transitioning: land must be managed organically for three years before crops can be sold as organic, during which yields may fall and prices remain conventional; organic farming requires new skills, especially for weed control; and farmers need reliable buyers, organic inputs, and infrastructure. Our article on the organic food market describes current sales trends.

What Are Other Companies Doing?

Nature’s Path was an early example, but other initiatives followed. In 2021, the Rodale Institute announced the U.S. Organic Grain Initiative with agribusiness giant Cargill and organic poultry producer Bell & Evans, aiming to help transition more than 50,000 acres of corn and soybeans to organic to address a shortage of domestic organic animal feed. Large food companies have also partnered with farms to convert land, offered premiums for crops grown during the transition period, and launched products using transitional ingredients to give farmers income before certification. Some companies have expanded into regenerative agriculture commitments, which focus on soil health practices but are not necessarily organic.

How Do Organic Yields Compare?

Lower yields are a common concern about organic farming. A 2016 study in PLOS ONE by Andrew Kniss and colleagues analyzed USDA data from more than 10,000 organic farmers covering nearly 800,000 hectares in 2014. Averaged across crops, organic yields were 67 percent of conventional yields, but several crops showed no significant difference, and organic hay and some other crops performed relatively well while grains and some vegetables had larger gaps. A 2015 meta-analysis in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B by Lauren Ponisio and colleagues found that diversification practices such as crop rotation and multi-cropping substantially reduced the yield gap between organic and conventional farming.

Does Organic Pay?

For farmers considering transition, profitability matters most. A 2015 meta-analysis in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by David Crowder and John Reganold of Washington State University, covering 55 crops on five continents, found organic farming 22 to 35 percent more profitable than conventional farming when actual price premiums were applied, even with lower yields, while organic farms needed only 5 to 7 percent premiums to break even. Without premiums, organic was less profitable. This is why food companies that offer premiums, transition support, and long-term purchase commitments can make organic conversion feasible for farmers. Our article on organic farm profitability explores the economics further.

What Are the Environmental Benefits of Converting Land?

Converting farmland to organic can provide environmental benefits beyond the farm’s products. A 2012 meta-analysis in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Andreas Gattinger and colleagues, based on 74 studies, found that organically farmed soils had higher soil organic carbon concentrations and stocks than conventionally farmed soils, though differences in sequestration rates were smaller when accounting for external inputs such as manure. A 2014 meta-analysis in the Journal of Applied Ecology by Sean Tuck and colleagues found that organic farming increased species richness by about 30 percent on average, with greater benefits in intensively farmed landscapes. The Saskatchewan purchase also set aside more than 1,500 acres of bush and wetlands for wildlife conservation.

Can Organic Feed the World?

Critics argue that lower organic yields mean converting more land to organic would require more farmland to produce the same food. A 2017 modeling study in Nature Communications by Adrian Muller and colleagues found that converting entirely to organic agriculture would require more land than conventional agriculture but would reduce nitrogen surplus and pesticide use. However, when combined with reductions in food waste and in feed grown on cropland, with correspondingly lower consumption of animal products, land use under organic agriculture could remain below the reference scenario. The authors concluded that combining partial strategies, rather than full implementation of any one, offers a more sustainable food future.

How Do Companies Support Organic Transition?

Approach	How it works	Trade-offs
Buying farmland	Company owns land and partners with farmers to manage it	Secures supply; raises questions about corporate land ownership
Long-term contracts	Guaranteed purchases at set premiums	Reduces farmer risk; ties farmers to one buyer
Transition premiums	Higher prices for crops grown during the 3-year transition	Eases transition costs; limited markets for transitional crops
Technical assistance	Training, mentoring, and agronomic support	Builds skills; depends on program quality
Partnerships with nonprofits	Joint programs with organizations like Rodale Institute	Combines expertise and market access

Questions About Corporate Farmland Ownership

Food companies buying farmland can expand organic acreage, but corporate and investor ownership of farmland raises broader questions. Farmland prices have risen substantially in many regions, making it harder for young and beginning farmers to buy land. Some critics worry that institutional investors and large companies accumulating farmland could concentrate control over food production. Others note that partnerships that lease land to farmers on fair terms, such as Nature’s Path’s arrangement with Montana farmers, can help new farmers access land they could not otherwise afford. How land is managed, who benefits from it, and whether farmers have secure, fair arrangements matter more than ownership alone. Our article on farmland ownership and agribusiness in Ukraine discusses related concerns about who controls agricultural land.

Keeping Organic Land in Production

An often overlooked challenge is retirement. Many organic farmers who pioneered the movement decades ago are reaching retirement age, and their land may be sold to conventional farmers or developers if no organic successor is found. Nature’s Path’s Saskatchewan purchase from a retiring organic farmer illustrates one way to keep certified land in organic production. Land trusts, farm succession programs, and incubator farms that connect retiring farmers with new ones are other approaches. Maintaining existing organic acreage is as important as converting new land.

Advice for Farmers Considering Transition

Farmers thinking about organic conversion can start by identifying buyers, whether food companies, cooperatives, or local markets, and exploring contracts or transition premiums. Starting with a portion of the farm reduces risk. Building soil fertility with legumes, cover crops, and manure before and during transition helps yields recover. Learning organic weed management from experienced farmers, extension specialists, and organic associations is essential. USDA programs, including the Organic Transition Initiative launched in 2022, offer mentoring, technical assistance, and certification cost-share. Keeping detailed records from the start simplifies certification.

What It Means for Consumers

When food companies invest in organic farmland and farmer transition, consumers benefit from more reliable supplies of organic products and potentially more domestic production with clearer supply chains. Buying from companies that disclose how they source ingredients and support farmers can align purchases with values. Consumers can also support organic farmland by buying from local organic farms, joining community-supported agriculture programs, and backing policies that fund organic research and transition assistance.

Regenerative Agriculture and Organic

In recent years, many large food companies have made commitments to regenerative agriculture, often measured in millions of acres. Regenerative practices such as cover cropping, reduced tillage, diverse rotations, and integrating livestock aim to improve soil health and can complement organic farming. However, regenerative claims lack a single legal definition, and many regenerative programs allow synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Certifications such as Regenerative Organic Certified combine organic standards with additional requirements for soil health, animal welfare, and farmworker fairness. Consumers should look at what each label actually requires.

A Balanced View

Food companies buying farmland and supporting organic transition address a real supply gap and can help farmers manage the risky transition period, keep organic land in production, and train new farmers. Research shows organic farming offers environmental benefits and can be profitable with premiums, though yields are typically lower. At the same time, corporate land ownership raises questions about land access and concentration, and success depends on fair partnerships with farmers. These efforts are one piece of a broader effort to expand organic agriculture, alongside public policy, research, and consumer demand.

Practical Takeaways

For consumers, support companies and farms that invest in organic and sustainable farming, and look beyond marketing to how ingredients are sourced. For farmers, explore company partnerships, transition premiums, and USDA support before converting, and start gradually. For policymakers, investing in organic research, transition assistance, and land access for new farmers can help close the domestic organic supply gap.

The Montana Partnership Model

Nature’s Path’s Montana farm was managed with Vilicus Farms, run by Doug Crabtree and Anna Jones-Crabtree, organic farmers who had built a diversified dryland operation in northern Montana growing grains, legumes, and oilseeds. Rather than hiring managers to run the land as a corporate farm, the arrangement aimed to support farmers who would eventually build their own operations, including through a farmer training program. The model reflected a recognition that expanding organic agriculture requires not only land but also skilled farmers. Dryland organic grain farming in the northern Plains relies heavily on diverse rotations, cover crops, and careful management of limited moisture.

Why Organic Grain Matters

Grains and legumes are the foundation of many organic products, from breakfast cereals and bread to plant milks and snacks, and they feed the animals that produce organic milk, eggs, and meat. Organic grain shortages have repeatedly constrained growth in these categories and led to imports from countries such as Turkey, Argentina, and India, some of which were later linked to fraud cases. Increasing domestic organic grain production improves supply security, reduces transportation, and supports rural economies. That is why much of the investment by food companies has focused on grain and feed crops.

Organic Fraud and the Value of Domestic Supply

Large shipments of grain falsely labeled organic entered the United States in the late 2010s, undercutting domestic organic farmers and eroding trust. Strengthened enforcement rules that took effect in 2024 tightened oversight of imports and supply chains. Companies that own or closely partner with farms can trace ingredients more reliably, which helps assure customers that products are genuinely organic. Our article on organic fraud and enforcement describes these issues.

Climate and Resilience

Organic and diversified farming systems may offer advantages in a changing climate. Higher soil organic matter can improve water retention, which helps crops withstand drought, and diverse rotations spread risk across several crops. The Gattinger meta-analysis found higher soil carbon in organic systems, though how much additional carbon is truly sequestered depends on inputs such as manure that may come from elsewhere. Weather extremes such as hail and drought still affect organic farms, as the Montana operation experienced, highlighting the value of crop diversity and risk management.

Looking Ahead

With organic sales projected to reach more than $100 billion in the United States by 2030, the organic supply gap is likely to persist unless farmland conversion accelerates. Food companies, nonprofits, and government programs will continue to play roles in helping farmers transition. The success of these efforts will depend on fair partnerships, reliable premiums, research on organic practices, and policies that help new farmers access land. For consumers, every purchase of organic products from companies that invest in farmers and farmland helps sustain the premiums and commitments that make conversion possible.

Feed for Organic Dairy, Eggs, and Meat

Organic livestock must eat organic feed, so the supply of organic corn and soybeans directly limits how much organic milk, eggs, chicken, and beef can be produced. Organic dairy and egg sales grew strongly in 2025, and organic beef sales jumped more than 40 percent, increasing demand for organic feed. Because much of this feed has been imported, efforts like the 2021 grain initiative focused specifically on transitioning corn and soybean acres. Poultry and dairy companies have particular incentives to invest in domestic organic feed supply, since feed is their largest cost.

Young and Beginning Farmers

Organic agriculture attracts many young and beginning farmers, but access to land and capital is their biggest barrier. Farmland prices have risen faster than farm incomes in many areas, and banks may be reluctant to lend for organic transitions. Arrangements in which companies, land trusts, or investors own land and lease it to farmers on long-term, affordable terms can help, especially if leases allow farmers to build equity or eventually buy the land. Incubator farms and mentoring programs give new farmers experience before taking on their own operations.

The Role of Public Policy

Government programs complement private efforts. The USDA’s Organic Transition Initiative, launched in 2022, funded mentoring networks, technical assistance, and market development. Certification cost-share programs reimburse part of farmers’ certification fees. Conservation programs can support practices such as cover cropping that help with transition. Crop insurance has expanded options for organic farmers. Advocates argue that organic research funding remains small relative to organic’s share of the market and that more investment would help close yield gaps and reduce transition risks.

Questions to Ask Food Brands

Where do your organic ingredients come from, and what share is domestic? Do you have long-term contracts or partnerships with farmers? Do you support farmers during the transition period? How do you verify organic integrity in your supply chain? Do your regenerative or sustainability claims include third-party verification? Brands that can answer clearly are more likely to be genuinely investing in organic agriculture.

Independent Companies Versus Large Conglomerates

Many well-known organic brands have been acquired by large food corporations over the past two decades. Independent, family-owned companies such as Nature’s Path have emphasized that their independence allows them to make long-term investments, like buying farmland, that may not deliver quick returns. Large conglomerates, on the other hand, have the scale to fund major transition programs across many acres. Both models can contribute to organic expansion, though consumers concerned about corporate consolidation may prefer to support independent brands. Our article on organic brands owned by major corporations explores this trend.

Wildlife and Conservation on Farmland

Farmland purchases can also include land set aside for conservation. In Saskatchewan, more than 1,500 acres of bush and wetlands were reserved for wildlife. Organic standards require practices that maintain or improve natural resources, including soil and water quality, and many organic farmers maintain hedgerows, buffer strips, and wetlands. Combining productive organic fields with protected natural areas supports pollinators, birds, and other wildlife, consistent with research showing higher biodiversity on organic farms, particularly in landscapes dominated by intensive agriculture.

Lessons for Expanding Organic Agriculture

The experience of companies investing in organic farmland suggests several lessons. Securing supply requires long-term commitments, because transition takes years and farmers need assurance that buyers will be there. Supporting farmers with knowledge and fair terms matters as much as providing land or capital. Keeping existing organic land in production when farmers retire is a cost-effective way to maintain supply. And collaboration among companies, nonprofits, researchers, and government programs can achieve more than any single effort. These lessons apply whether the goal is expanding organic, regenerative, or other sustainable farming systems.

Common Myths

“Organic farmland is growing as fast as organic sales.” Sales have grown much faster; organic is about 6 percent of food sales but around 1 percent of cropland.

“Organic farming can’t be profitable.” With premiums, organic farming is more profitable on average.

“Converting to organic is quick.” Land needs three years of organic management before certification.

“All regenerative products are organic.” Many regenerative programs allow synthetic chemicals.

“Corporate farmland ownership is always bad for farmers.” Outcomes depend on how land is managed and whether farmers have fair arrangements.

Key Terms

Transition period: The three years of organic management required before certification.

Transitional crops: Crops grown during the transition, sometimes sold at a premium.

Soil organic carbon: Carbon stored in soil organic matter, linked to soil health and climate benefits.

Supply gap: The difference between demand for organic products and domestic organic production.

Regenerative agriculture: Practices aimed at improving soil health; definitions vary.

The Bottom Line

Nature’s Path’s purchases of farmland in Montana and Saskatchewan to grow and protect organic grain highlighted a persistent problem: U.S. organic sales account for about 6 percent of food sales, but organic farmland covers only around 1 percent of cropland. Companies and partners have responded with land purchases, long-term contracts, transition premiums, and initiatives such as the 2021 effort to transition 50,000 acres of corn and soybeans. Research shows organic farming increases biodiversity and soil carbon and can be more profitable with premiums, though commercial organic yields average about two-thirds of conventional. Expanding organic farmland fairly and sustainably requires supporting farmers through the transition, keeping existing organic land in production, and ensuring that new arrangements benefit farmers and rural communities.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do food companies buy farmland?

To secure organic ingredient supplies, increase organic acreage, and support farmers, as demand outpaces domestic organic production.

How long does it take to convert land to organic?

Three years of organic management are required before crops can be certified.

Is organic farming profitable?

On average, yes, when price premiums are included; a global analysis found organic 22 to 35 percent more profitable.

Does organic farming help the environment?

Research finds higher biodiversity and soil carbon on organic farms, though yields are typically lower.

How can I support organic farmland?

Buy organic products, support local organic farms, and back policies that fund transition and land access for farmers.

References

1. Kniss AR, Savage SD, Jabbour R. Commercial Crop Yields Reveal Strengths and Weaknesses for Organic Agriculture in the United States. PLOS ONE. 2016;11(8):e0161673. PMID 27552217
2. Ponisio LC, M’Gonigle LK, Mace KC, et al. Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 2015;282(1799):20141396. PMID 25621333
3. Crowder DW, Reganold JP. Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 2015;112(24):7611–7616. PMID 26034271
4. Gattinger A, Muller A, Haeni M, et al. Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 2012;109(44):18226–18231. PMID 23071312
5. Tuck SL, Winqvist C, Mota F, et al. Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2014;51(3):746–755. PMID 25653457
6. Muller A, Schader C, El-Hage Scialabba N, et al. Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nature Communications. 2017;8(1):1290. PMID 29138387
7. Vitamin Retailer. Nature’s Path Purchases Acres of Organic Property. June 2014. vitaminretailer.com
8. KQED. Organic Cereal Manufacturer Nature’s Path Is Going Against the Grain by Investing in Organic Farmland. kqed.org
9. University of Wisconsin Extension. Rodale Enlists Cargill in Unlikely Alliance to Increase Organic Farmland. February 2021. fyi.extension.wisc.edu

Last updated: October 6, 2026