In Memoriam: Remembering Colin Cureton

Agroforestry Partners’ president, Brett Hundley, recently sat down for a conversation with Colin Cureton, an entrepreneur and change agent in the regenerative agriculture space. Colin works at the University of Minnesota’s Forever Green Initiative while also managing multiple business ventures focused on multiplying the pathways of regenerative agriculture in the U.S. and abroad. The transcript presented below includes as much of the original conversation as possible, which focused on personal career stories, learnings from regenerative agriculture implementation work, the importance of markets downstream, and how to overcome the gaps that inhibit realizing regenerative agriculture project success.

Brett: Colin, it is great to be with you today. I’d love to start by understanding what motivated you into regenerative agriculture. What’s your story?

Colin: Thanks, Brett. It’s great to be with you as well. I came to regenerative agriculture after about 15 years of working on domestic food systems change. But my entire career began as an outgrowth of a personal health struggle that I had as an adolescent related to one of these chronic, diet-related autoimmune diseases that, honestly, almost took me out. That got me thinking at a young age, why is this happening? How does it happen?

Brett: How old were you, Colin?

Colin: I was about 16.

Brett: Wow, that is scary.

Colin: Yeah, from 16 to 18 years old I was very, very sick. So, as I did more work on my own situation, I became more aware of this spike in chronic diet-related diseases that was happening in developed nations around the world and the answer kept leading back to food and agricultural systems. That bridged over into all the environmental and social concerns - it’s all related of course. I went on to learn about globalization, trade, social change…which all seemed to be leading back to food and agricultural systems as well. So, this is where I decided to spend my career.

Brett: It’s so interesting to hear that because my investment fund has a similar story with some of our principals being motivated by diet and health-related issues that we believed could be solved by implementing new farm systems that create healthier food and that this, in turn, could solve for some of these health issues. So, the fund was set up with one of its primary goals being to restore microbiology back into our soils with the hopes of driving healthier food production in the future. It’s just interesting to hear that it’s a similar story on both sides here.

Colin: I hear this quote often in our shared agroforestry world that no matter the question, trees can be the answer, right? Similarly, if climate change is the polycrisis then maybe regenerative agriculture can be a polysolution. When I started working squarely in regenerative agriculture, it was about seven years ago. I had worked at different scales in the food system and then this opportunity came up to work on a bio-regional scale for a major academic institution. This work is with the Forever Green Initiative at the University of Minnesota. Forever Green is advancing new crops and cropping systems that create regenerative outcomes and values in the upper midwestern U.S., and that has been where I’ve been focused the past seven years.

Brett: I’m glad you gave us a lead-in here, because that is something I wanted to ask you up front…when it comes to your regenerative agriculture work, can you tell me what you’re doing today and maybe one or two things that have been really important learning points for you thus far?

Colin: Sure. Well, seven years ago I came back to this region to be a part of the inaugural commercialization team of an agricultural innovation platform, called the Forever Green Initiative, which is based at the University of Minnesota. It partners with farmers, other private sector actors, state government. This platform is doing amazing cross-disciplinary science to develop new perennial and winter annual crops that advance continuous living cover…which is highly synonymous with the principles of soil health and regenerative agriculture. Examples include Kernza Perennial Grain, perennial cereal rye, perennial wheat, silflower, hybrid hazelnuts, winter camelina, domesticated pennycress, winter pea, and winter barley, to name a few. Broadly speaking, the work is to develop productive, profitable cropping systems that keep the soil covered year-round. In the process, you diversify landscapes, reduce synthetic inputs, armor the soil, and keep a living root in the soil. I started in a supply chain development specialist role, and have since built out our Commercialization, Adoption, and Scaling team. We deal with the strategy of how these crops go to market, the farmer adoption support strategy, and market development strategies. So, I sit within this agricultural platform between 100 scientists developing new perennial crops and the outside world.

Brett: Wow, incredible.

Colin: Yes, I could tell you lots of stories. For the first few years I worked pretty intensively on Kernza Perennial Grain. The last few years, I’ve been on an entrepreneurial journey building an ecosystem of startup enterprises including Overstory Ventures, Manto Foods, and Midwest Hazelnuts. Midwest Hazelnuts is a spinout company of the Upper Midwest Hazelnut Development Initiative (UMHDI) that is taking UMHDI’s first improved hybrid hazelnut cultivars, the Adventure Series(TM), to market and developing stacked service enterprises that will enable the industry. Midwest Hazelnuts is a steward-owned company. All of this relates to a desire to build markets for perennial crops and regenerative agriculture.

Brett: Interesting. So, really quick, when you mentioned starting in the supply chain role at Forever Green, you’re saying that it wasn’t necessarily focused on supporting perennial inputs for your cropping systems work but was more on the backend related to finding markets inside the supply chains of others?

Colin: Yes, good question. So, when I got into that role, it turned out to be a lot broader than I was originally expecting. We quickly learned that we needed a strategy for developing the licensing effort, grower network, value chain, and market for crops like Kernza. I started learning about intellectual property and licensing. We developed a strategy to work with grower-owned groups and regional seed companies. I learned early on about the value of partnering a bit deeper into the supply chain…because really the strategy and direction of these crops will be determined by the motivations and resources of your market partners. So, that was an important lesson. We realized quickly that we needed to support farmer adoption too. So, I developed a pilot farmer adoption program that’s still running to this day. Then we started getting into market development. This required a new supply chain that could actually deliver the product to market. Then of course you had to understand the market opportunity, and in fact you should probably do this first. So, this was the range of activities that I was involved in, with many other people. We’ve made a lot of progress and learned a lot of lessons. Hundreds of people have contributed to these outcomes, but looking at where Kernza was five years ago to now is encouraging. Then, there was no reliable Kernza seed supply, no distributors, and a few pilot products. Now there are six released Kernza varieties, four seed suppliers, six Kernza distributors. All of those distributors are startups, four of six are in Minnesota, and a majority are farmer-owned. Over 75 Kernza products have been released, about 10 of which are nationally distributed. Kernza is still very small on the landscape—a couple thousand acres—but perennial grains are making headway. General Mills brand - Cascadian Farm - just launched a new line of Kernza products nationally, quadrupling their purchasing. In all of this, entrepreneurs and start-ups have been critical drivers of building supply chains and markets. Institutions de-risk and support them, but entrepreneurs and farmers actually go do it. Way more support is needed for these regenerative agriculture heroes out there doing the work.

Brett: Yep. You know – it’s fascinating – one of the things I am realizing with regards to our own learnings at Agroforestry Partners and conversations with people like yourself is that early adopters of regenerative agriculture in the United States…you don’t have big wide teams available yet because these aren’t big wide channels that have been built out and structured just yet…and so these early adopters are being asked to wear a wide variety of hats while having to learn on the fly about literally the entire value chain on new products and practices. When we started our fund in 2022 and based it around chestnut agroforestry, we were having conversations with investors up front about the chestnut market…questions surrounding who was going to buy our chestnuts and what price they would pay…there was so much focus downstream on market building and what not. And then in the same breath, we would pivot over to how the ground should be prepped, where inputs were coming from, the genetics of our trees. So, it is interesting to hear you speak of needing to manage the entire value chain with a small group of people internally. We’ve been in the same boat and it really speaks to the partnering aspect that you brought up before, as well. Your partner set is critical when it comes to implementing these regenerative agriculture transitions because of the vast expertise that is needed across the entire value chain.

Colin: Absolutely. Brett, the more I work across agriculture, the more humble and more cautious I get. There is a fantastic array of challenges that needs to be solved for in order to bring anything to market. The other thing I wanted to mention is that just because a regenerative agriculture transition incorporates perennial crops doesn’t mean that you can give up attention to typical farm production cycles and other land management needs. This is still farming at the end of the day - weather, pests, weeds, volatile markets. So, there are still the immediate pressures of making sure things get planted on time, establish well, that there are nutrient management plans in place, weed control…all the typical questions related to agronomy and farming. It’s all still present and extremely relevant to producing a product that you can market. The same goes for everything after the farmgate, too. Then it turns out that financing, building, and managing a supply chain or developing a product to be another skillset and mindset all together. The work takes all-stars of all types.

Brett: Great point. So, there are lots of factors that are important for successfully transitioning American agriculture. My view has traditionally been that markets are most important, but there are of course other factors like policy, research and development, etc. But without markets downstream, any new practices or products implemented on the farm aren’t going to last very long. Like I said earlier, pretty much all of my investor conversations usually come back to who is going to buy the product and what price they will pay. Are markets at the top of the list for you as well?

Colin: Yes, markets are towards the top of the list. In addition to markets, one important factor that rides below the surface is agricultural research and development. R&D in perennial and regenerative cropping systems is a tiny fraction of what goes regularly into annual commodity crops. Billions of dollars have been spent historically to develop the small number of crops now on the American landscape. Networks of institutions have been set up to develop these crops largely through federal and state funding, which then naturally bridges to private investment. So, without this same level of investment or attention, you can’t get viable alternatives for farmers. The other piece then is policy. Agriculture is highly regulated. If you look back historically at how agricultural markets have taken shape, in many cases they are heavily incentivized if not mandated or created. We often think in terms of something being “regulated out of existence” but the crops on our landscape today have been regulated into existence. So, this is an important piece as well. But you’re right, without markets, expanding supplies of new products could create a lot of problems for farmers if we don’t think strategically about how to market these products downstream.

Brett: You’re right. In effect, for something like regenerative agriculture in the United States, we need a really strong government support program to help set the table for building a market downstream. We need a really strong R&D outlay to set this table. And with those two pillars in place, the private sector will build a market on its own using these guardrails to create whatever works for actors in the market.

Colin: Absolutely. Look at renewable energy. This is essentially the same playbook with regenerative cropping systems. Develop new technologies and systems, go get market wins, change policy to support this approach. Rinse and repeat. And while I don’t want government to just wholesale regulate something into existence, there is no denying that existing commodity industries are directly incentivized and heavily de-risked. So, this normal model needs to be expanded into regenerative agriculture instead of just telling innovators, “go survive in the marketplace.” That’s not practically how innovation in critical sectors of the economy and society work. We need the technological breakthroughs and great business models, and we also need the systems that support them.

Brett: Yep. 100%. It’s not the same. I think many people across society are generally surprised at the way industries are subsidized by governments. A lot of times it is behind the scenes or in different forms. But conventional agriculture today gets a wide array of subsidies that aren’t in place for regenerative products or practices. How do I convince a farmer to take on a new approach that can indirectly benefit his land when the direct factors like insurance and safety net payments aren’t in play like they are for corn, soy, and wheat? To me, it’s like a foot race between two similar runners…only one gets a meaningful head start relative to the other.

Colin: I can highlight a couple things we’re doing that are early on and small - but promising - that we’re doing to try and address those things. Now, part of this is having a really supportive state government, like we do in Minnesota. We’ve had strong urban-rural partnerships in place as a result of decades of organizing. One outcome of this is the farmer adoption program that I mentioned earlier, called EECO. The state gave Forever Green some funding for farmer adoption of new continuous living cover crops, so we developed a novel program. Half goes to technical assistance. The other half is financial assistance that breaks down into a two-part payment structure. One is a model-based field-specific ecosystem service payment and then the other piece is related to risk management. If a field fails, the program will pay out up to half the cost of production. We have 5,000 acres enrolled in this program and 10,000 acres since its inception. Seventy-five growers and 200 fields have participated. So, this is unique…it’s not crop insurance…but it is more like a warranty program that also offers the help of technical experts. Now, an example of how the state is supporting market development…three years ago, I formed a coalition with regenerative growers and entrepreneurs where we went to the state and said, “you’re now incentivizing and underwriting some of the R&D and farmer adoption efforts on perennial crops - I’m out here trying to build a market and I’m in the cold…can we get support to help build markets?” The result was a Minnesota Department of Agriculture initiative called the Developing Markets for CLC Crops Program that provides up to $100,000 grants to small and medium sized enterprises in Minnesota that build supply chains and markets for continuous living cover crops, providing $2 million to date. But way more is obviously needed to move regenerative agriculture forward inside a state - much less the U.S. But it’s a nice example of local innovation. I’d love to see more states get involved like this on farmer adoption and market development.

Brett: Thank you for those examples, Colin. That is amazing to hear. My mind was trending in the same direction as you were talking…the question of whether we’re increasingly in a situation where it very much matters what state you’re in…but that this only takes you so far. And if this is going to truly reach scale across the country, then the federal government has to be present.

Colin: Yep, you’re right. I would call this “enabling capacity.”

Brett: For sure.

Colin: Within the private sector itself, it is entrepreneurs that are really driving this work. In corporate innovation circles, I frequently hear how R&D budgets are declining and M&A strategies are increasing. Industry increasingly develops innovation strategies by partnering or investing alongside startups - or acquiring startups. Regenerative agriculture platforms need better structures and strategies to enable this entrepreneurship that will drive innovation. Thekla Teunis of Grounded has this great series about financing regenerative agriculture called “How to finance it?” My question for all the regenerative agriculture investors, funders, and advocates is, “who will build it?”

Brett: Yea, I would agree. It makes my mind go towards the topic of scale. As we move towards regenerative agriculture, does the scale need to happen on the farm? In the middle of the supply chain? How do we enable this, to your point? I would love to see smallholder farming in the U.S., but the scale needs to take place somewhere.

Colin: Over time, the market will pressure efficiency into the system. That is just the reality of agriculture in America. So, having a scalable business model will be essential. With the entrepreneur set, making sure they have access to talent, resources, capital, support to pressure test a business model and take it to market with the potential to scale…that is the only way we’re going to get the impact that we need on millions of acres.

Brett: Agreed. So, how do we think about the funding dynamic behind all of this? At Agroforestry Partners, we think constantly about how to engage private sector investors and drive more money into the space. As we’ve interacted with investors, the most common issue we hear with regards to an investment is track record. The same can be said for corporate interest. Larger investors need to see an operating history and proof of concept before devoting bigger sums of money that can deliver scale. Philanthropic capital is definitely available, but it is too small to drive meaningful expansion. Now, in lieu of track record, we’ve been trying to deliver some of the other intangibles…materials, data and communications…that funders want to see. These are detailed financial models, marketing materials that address common questions and pain points, communications on risk mitigation, impact reports, etc. All of this is table stakes when speaking to capital allocators. Partnerships are also critical to expand expertise across your project.

Colin: I agree with all of that. This is a major gap right now. And it’s a major reason why I co-founded a venture studio – Overstory Ventures. Venture studios build fleets of companies with entrepreneurs, moving them through a replicable venture-building process. Research shows that studio-built companies have higher TVPI, IRR, quicker times to seed capital, and increased chances of a founder exit. We all expect investable, scalable entrepreneurship to just happen organically but many times it doesn’t, or it takes too long. This dynamic limits deal flow. Venture studios or funds like Agroforestry Partners could serve in this role and potentially cut down lead times to capital, improve performance, and help scale the industry.

Brett: This is a really important point to highlight here. It isn’t just capital that is required. It is organization and expertise that matter just as much. And altogether, these factors can help solve for that track record issue that I mentioned previously. Funders are probably willing to yield on some of this when you have more organization and partnership in place that can protect a project and, ultimately, an investment.

Colin: Yep. For sure. I spoke last week with a number of institutions that are starting to launch their own venture studios, including in agriculture. Entities like Purdue University that are seeding their own studios and then accessing a similar amount of capital from external sources to drive the entire platform forward. There are some good financing innovations in the marketplace too. I was involved in the front-end design for TIFS’ Diversifund effort and have been participating in the Transcap Initiative’s Capital Orchestrator for regenerative agriculture program in the Midwest. It’s been great to see the regenerative loan guarantee work being done by Food System 6 as well. What not enough people are thinking about is building the great regenerative agriculture businesses that can participate in these funds and financial innovations—who is working on that? It’s a gap, and one a regenerative venture studio can fill. Something I’m also iterating on now is the potential to get state governments to stand behind financial bonds for R&D in regenerative agriculture. The timeline of R&D around these perennial crops - and the scale of resources needed - better matches the way we finance infrastructure through bonds. A number of national and state government bond research and development projects exist. Could we have a Continuous Living Cover Crop Innovation Bond? Say, $20-$50 million to drive R&D for 20 years and create new multi-billion dollar industries? The state could back the bond and potentially open up a range of new investor interest. By diversifying into this bond, more investors could participate.

Brett: I love that idea!

Colin: Well, I will put one more person down for a yes vote!

Brett: These conversations are so valuable for a variety of reasons. But it is the sharing of information and the awareness of ideas for potential coalition building that might be the most important to me. Everyone’s bandwidth in this space gets so limited today because we are all wearing so many hats and we don’t have the time to sit and talk and absorb information and ideas.

Colin: Well, I will give you one more as it relates to building great products and developing markets, given our discussion on the value of markets downstream earlier. My co-founder at Overstory Ventures – Carolina Donoso – spent 15 years at a global food ingredient company. We had a project with a local grower-owned agroforestry company here to develop new products. Carolina used a clear methodology to design products around consumer preference, lifestyle, and profitability. We got access to CPG databases and did a global scan of every hazelnut product launched in the past three years and looked for trends in different markets of interest. We designed a customer avatar and did some flavor profile development of snack mix blends, costed everything out, and developed three new SKUs. The result was Midwest Munch from Hazel Heart Farms. The products are selling great. The product development process was so critical. It added a ton of value to the company by stretching their supply out into more end products while dropping more profit to the bottom line. If we’re going to compete as an industry, we need to leverage the professional skills and methods common in the food and beverage industry.

Brett: That is such great insight. What did that process cost and how much time did it take you?

Colin: We did it over roughly six months and leveraged our venture studio network to help in some other areas of expertise. We did it with I think a $30,000 contract out of a $100,000 value-added producer grant.

Brett: See, this is a critical point to me. From a time and cost standpoint, those aren’t really huge numbers. This work can be done in relatively short order at relatively attractive cost. It’s just about knowing how to go about accessing these components and executing against them. That is what is so important about this conversation more broadly…finding a way to align interests, connect people, and enable access to information. If we can do that, the time and cost for this transition might surprise some people in a positive way.

Colin: I entirely agree. This is about having a theory of change, a strategy, and a methodology. Without a methodology, we are all just scrambling.

Brett: Agreed. Colin, thanks so much for your time today. I’ve really enjoyed this conversation.

Colin: Same here, Brett. Thanks.

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.