Counting Calories...Off The Farm

Is it true that a monocropped corn field produces more food and, thus, calories for society, relative to more complex polycropping approaches like agroforestry?

1. Headline

A long-running viewpoint within the food and agriculture space is that the conventional production of staple crops like corn is necessary to feed society and that replacements in the form of perennial agriculture or agroforestry won’t be able to produce enough calories for consumption in any regenerative agriculture transition writ large. We do the detailed math on a comparison between corn and a chestnut/hay agroforestry system and find an outcome very much at odds with such misplaced conventional wisdom. Additionally, when one also considers the quality and sustainability of the agroforestry system’s calories relative to a staple crop like corn, the choice then seems to become obvious in favor of perennial agriculture.

2. What does this mean?

In his popular 2013 book, Restoration Agriculture, Mark Shepard decries the amount of widespread doubt over perennial agriculture’s ability to produce enough food relative to the conventional monocropping practices that it would theoretically replace in a broader regenerative agriculture transition. Although questions on this topic have moderated somewhat in the public forum since that time, we admit that we still get investor questions over potential unintended “food loss” consequences of our chestnut/hay agroforestry systems replacing corn and bean output on conventional farms. The idea, of course, is that a mixture of multiple specialty crops will not produce as much food as the concentrated production of one mainstream crop (when considering the same plot of land), especially when accounting for the efficiencies of conventional practices (read: chemicals) relative to those surrounding organic or regenerative practices (read: no chemicals).

To address this concern, we run through the exercise of comparing the production of corn relative to the production of a mixed chestnut/hay system in the United States. This allows us to compare the food calorie output of one approach vs. that of another. From there, we consider the quality of those calorie outputs, along with the long-term sustainability of each system. To be sure, all of these variables matter when we’re talking about feeding a society over time.

---

Corn is, by far, the leading crop produced in the United States, planted on an astounding 90.5 million acres (36.2 million hectares) of land in 2024. Aside from its footprint, corn is also ubiquitous in the contemporary American diet, used as a raw material for everything from chicken to chips to Coca-Cola. One pound of corn provides roughly 1,656 calories on its own. Each bushel of corn produced from the farm weighs 56 pounds. And each U.S. acre of corn has averaged a yield of 174 bushels over the past 10 years. Together, these data points mean that U.S. corn farmers have been producing an average of 16.1 million calories of corn per acre over the past 10 years. On its face, there is simply no comparison between this number and an approximate 2.03 million calories per acre from chestnuts (plus some additional benefit from hay that might be used as animal feed). But there are some critical caveats to consider when using a crop like corn as the measuring stick for caloric output.

According to recent year data from the USDA, roughly 38% of American corn production goes to the ethanol (fuel additive) sector. Thus, right off the bat, 38% of the 16.1 million calories from corn gets lopped off the top, reducing the total to 10 million calories per corn acre. An additional ~40% of the U.S. corn crop goes into the livestock and poultry sector as animal feed, representing 6.4 million calories of the reduced 10 million calorie total. For the animal feed component, these calories do not transfer on a one-to-one basis into our meat, dairy, and egg products. In the animal protein space, such parlance is mainly referred to as the “feed-to-gain” or “feed conversion” ratio. Consider the following:

• It takes 6 to 10 pounds of feed to produce one pound (liveweight) of beef

• It takes 1 pound of feed to produce two pounds of whole milk

• It takes 3 to 3.5 pounds of feed to produce one pound (liveweight) of pork

• It takes 1.5 to 2 pounds of feed to produce one pound (liveweight) of broiler meat (chicken)

• It takes 3 to 4 pounds of feed to produce one dozen (1.5 pounds) table eggs

Against these feed conversion ratios, we make the following additional assumptions based on our experience covering the sector:

• Corn makes up ~70% of the average feed ration for pigs and poultry and ~55% for cattle on grain

• The dressed weight to live weight ratio for beef cattle, hogs, and poultry is 60%, 72%, and 72%, respectively

• Edible meat yield is ~60% of dressed weight (dressed/carcass weight includes bones, fat, etc.)

• U.S. beef cattle, dairy cattle, hogs, broiler chickens, and table egg layers represent 5%, 4.3%, 11.8%, 74.6%, and 4.3% of the total annual feed quantity consumed, respectively (for the sake of this analysis, we assume these are the only five animal protein sectors in the market, as they do make up most of American meat, dairy, and egg production)

• One pound calorie comparisons to corn (1,656 calories) …

  • Raw Beef - 1,137 calories (69% of corn)

  • Whole Milk - 279 calories¹ (17% of corn)

  • Raw Pork - 1,425 calories (86% of corn)

  • Raw Chicken - 720 calories (43% of corn)

  • Whole Eggs - 572 calories (35% of corn)

Once accounting for all these factors together, 1 corn calorie that is fed to an animal ends up as a blended average of 0.08 calories available in the meat, dairy, and egg products themselves. Thus, a sector total of 6.4 million calories measured in corn as animal feed ends up actually being just ~509,000 calories of meat, dairy, and egg products available to human beings.

Aside from the ~38% of U.S. corn production that gets used in the ethanol sector along with the ~40% that gets used as livestock feed, approximately 12% of American corn supply (1.9 million calories/ac) is exported to international markets (where most ends up as animal feed); roughly 8% (1.3 million calories/ac) goes to “industrial” uses like corn starch, corn oil, and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS); and a relatively minor ~2% (322,000 calories/ac) goes to direct human consumption.

For the ~12% of corn that goes into international markets - mainly as animal feed - we can replicate the domestic U.S. math above and translate this corn calorie value of 1.9 million calories to ~152,000 calories available to human beings in their final form. On the industrial side, we use corn syrup production as a proxy for the entire sector; on this basis, it takes 60 bushels of corn, or 3,640 pounds, to produce 2,000 pounds of corn syrup, translating to a volume “loss” of roughly 45% during the production process. Additionally, the 1,265 calories in a proxy like one pound of HFCS compare to the original 1,656 calories in one pound of corn. Together, the associated math takes the industrial sector’s total starting calories of 1.3 million down to ~546,000 calories in final form available to the consumer.

When one then sums the final tally for each corn use sector, that person is left with roughly 1.53 million calories available for consumption compared to 16.1 million calories coming off each acre from the farm. Wow. This must be why the U.S. grows so much corn!

---

If we return to the original comparison with a chestnut agroforestry system, what once overwhelmingly favored corn relative to chestnuts and hay has now been reversed in favor of the agroforestry system. Raw chestnuts used in Agroforestry Partners’ projects deliver 1,016 calories per pound. We expect to deliver a chestnut yield of at least 2,000 pounds per acre, net of weather/pest loss, shrink, and other variables. Such dynamics should therefore lead to a supply of at least 2.03 million calories per acre from the production of chestnuts. Agroforestry Partners is also growing hay in the alleyways of our chestnut tree rows. Based on layout and production dynamics within our system, we are currently averaging ~5 round hay bales per acre, with each one weighing roughly 1,000 pounds in size. This yields a hay output of 5,000 pounds per acre. Although hay can be used in a variety of markets that don’t result in indirect human consumption (e.g., horse farms), we assume for the purposes of this report that 75% of the hay from our agroforestry system goes into the animal feed market for dairy and beef cows. Additionally, we assume that hay makes up ~30% of the average feed ration for American cattle on grain. Based in part on the feed math presented above, one could argue that each acre of hay from our agroforestry system has the potential to contribute up to ~800,000 calories in beef and dairy products to the consumer, if fed in a 30% ration to American cattle². Together, this means that a chestnut/hay agroforestry system has the potential to supply upwards of 2.8 million calories per acre to the consumer, relative to 1.53 million calories from corn, based on the latter’s current end use profile.

---

Not only is there a difference in quantity of calories between the two variables, but also one of quality. According to the USDA, a direct 1-for-1 comparison between raw chestnuts and field corn shows that chestnuts have considerably higher water content, lower fat profiles, higher calcium, higher potassium, much lower sodium, higher copper, and higher manganese. Corn has higher protein (9.4g vs. 4.2g), higher iron (2.7mg vs. 1.4mg), higher magnesium (127mg vs. 84mg), higher phosphorous (210mg vs. 96mg), and higher zinc (2.2mg vs. 0.9mg), when measured on a 100g basis. Although claims of relative health can thus be subjective, depending on the individual, more objective views can be found by comparing raw chestnuts (as they are typically consumed) to the end products that are created from corn. Based on the information presented above, almost 85% of the U.S. corn crop goes into the production of meat, dairy, and egg products (includes U.S. export component), after removing non-food uses like ethanol from the accounting profile. Another 13% of the food-bound corn crop then goes into industrial products like corn oil, starch, and syrup that are used in ultra-processed foods (UPFs) like sodas, snacks, baked goods, etc.

UPFs are highly addictive foods, stripped of their nutrients inherently embedded in corn and other raw materials, and are a direct contributing factor to ballooning obesity rates in the U.S. and other developed countries. Efforts to lower intake of these foods continues to gain steam, with research showing that reducing one’s consumption of UPFs leads to significant health improvements while reducing the risk of chronic disease and mental health disorders. On the animal protein side, the intense feeding of corn grains into animals that largely evolved to eat pasture and bugs means that American meat, dairy, and egg products are overloaded with omega-6 polyunsaturated fats (highly present in vegetables like corn), relative to a more balanced profile between omega-6s and omega-3s that would come from eating pasture-based protein products. This imbalance in our diets today has been shown to foster higher levels of inflammation in our bodies, leading to a host of ongoing health problems in human beings (and our animals!).

---

Finally, we must also consider the sustainability of producing food from monocropped fields of corn relative to agroforestry systems that involve the alleycropping of crops like chestnuts and hay or silvopasture operations that integrate animals, trees, and forage crops together. Conventional monocropping practices involving the annual planting of crops like corn and soybeans on huge tracts of land have led to a bevy of ecological problems that are increasingly impacting our health and our forward ability to produce food. The two biggest related issues are 1) the inability of annual crops to establish stable root structures, and 2) the heavy use of industrial chemicals. Together, conventional farming practices kill bacteria and fungi in our soil which, in turn, limits the ability of plants to absorb minerals and vitamins. This dynamic means that less nutrients are available to the humans or animals that eat these plants. A lack of root structure and microbiology means that American soils have been eroding faster than they can naturally replenish, with the country losing over half its topsoil during the past ~100 years. Such erosion is carrying industrial farm chemicals into our waterways where they are increasingly consumed via drinking water supplies. Conventional farm practices are also the leading driver of biodiversity loss today, killing pollinator species like honeybees and harming unseen natural world connections that humans rely on for the production of textiles, medicine, food, oxygen, and much more.

The integration of trees into the farming sector helps to correct many if not all of the aforementioned negative externalities produced by conventional agriculture. Trees and their root structures extend further every year, binding soil together and helping to develop bacteria and fungi underground. This helps to return nutrients into our food and keep chemicals from washing into our drinking water supplies. Trees sequester carbon from the atmosphere and help to offset carbon releases that come from industry, helping to limit global warming. Trees return biodiversity to farm landscapes and help foster an increase in pollinator species (they also attract predator species of many common pests on the farm). Finally, fruit and nut trees offer healthier food options for humans, while supplying farmers and landowners with new sources of income. Importantly, multistrata (layered) agroforestry practices have also been shown to boost resilience to the overall system, inherently protecting the production of food from changing risk patterns associated with weather and pest events, compared to increasingly vulnerable practices like the monocropping of individual plants (i.e., conventional corn production).

3. Key takeaway

Conventional wisdom says that we need to keep producing staple crops like corn in large monocropped fields so that we can feed a growing population. Proponents of this viewpoint say that replacements like perennial agriculture or polycropping practices like agroforestry won’t produce enough food and that society therefore runs the risk of going hungry, as a result. But conventional wisdom is wrong. When we compare the true caloric output of one acre of corn versus that of a chestnut/hay agroforestry system, we find that the latter meaningfully exceeds the former based on current corn disappearance patterns in the U.S. today. Not only is the quantity of the chestnut/hay’s calories higher than that of corn, but the quality and sustainability of these calories are better, as well. In truth, the United States and society writ large have no choice but to modify our production practices going forward.

4. Where to find us

Check us out on our homepage or come connect with us on LinkedIn.

We’re an investment fund that raises money from long-term investors to pay farmers and landowners to plant trees on their properties alongside crops and/or animals, returning nutrients to the soil and our food while delivering attractive, uncorrelated returns to investors.

---

1. A sizable amount of milk goes into the production of cheese, dried milk powder, and other dairy products, which we ignore for the purposes of this report.

2. The exercise of evaluating hay’s caloric contribution into animal products is made more precarious by the fact that humans don’t directly consume hay as a food product, itself. Thus, it is somewhat more challenging to compare a non-food item’s caloric contribution to that of something created for human consumption. In this regard, hay seemingly has an outsized impact on the caloric production associated with beef and dairy products, relative to corn. We therefore use language that one acre of hay could provide “up to” 800,000 calories in beef and dairy products, when fed at a 30% ration level in the U.S.