Arva Intelligence Corp is an ag-technology company founded in 2018 and headquartered in Houston, Texas, developing AI and machine-learning tools to help farmers optimize inputs, yields, and soil management. It also connects producers to environmental markets, using farm data to support regenerative practices and participation in carbon programs.
Your background in software, capital markets and investment did not make agriculture the most obvious next step. At what point did it shift from an industry to invest in to one you wanted to help redesign?
My family’s motivation for investing in farmland was to get a good yield and be able to go duck hunting. But as I saw tenant farmers turning over and dealing with financial hardship — agriculture is highly leveraged and susceptible to externalities — the land was suffering. That led me to start a research project with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 2016 to examine soil health. This research led us to develop AI optimization models for agriculture that now include the ability to quantify carbon emissions and soil carbon storage potential.
My co-founder, Mark Isbel, a fifth-generation rice farmer, farms 15 miles away. Mark’s family has been doing regenerative practices for 60 years and has accumulated over 6% organic matter, while mine was as low as 1.25%. That didn’t look sustainable. The system farmers were subject to wasn’t financially or environmentally sustainable and was leaving our land worse off. Depleted soils leave us dependent on excessive chemicals and fertilizers that can run off into our lakes and bayous. Agriculture policy since the 70’s has encouraged cheap calories. To quote Nixon’s Ag Secretary, Earl Butz: “plant fence row to fence row, go big or go home” emphasized production over sustainability. My passion and motivation is to improve soil health while reducing farmer costs and increasing the value of their produce.
A lot of the conversation around regenerative agriculture still occurs at the theory level, even though it has been around for a long time. Where does Arva fit into that equation?
We did research for the Department of Energy through ARPA-E, measuring greenhouse gases using eddy covariance towers — CO2, nitrous oxide and methane — in crops. The goal was to prove we could grow a net negative corn or biofuel crop, working with Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, the University of Arkansas and Oak Ridge National Labs.
We determined that you can grow a net negative corn crop.
Farming is an energy system — like a solar panel converting sunlight into calories.
When we race to be the lowest-cost commodity producer, we ignore environmental impact. That’s why my soil was at 1.25% organic matter. Now we’ve rebuilt it — it was powder, no earthworms; now it’s living again. Healthier soil sequesters carbon, improves resilience, and reduces dependence on inputs. We’re trying to value ecosystem services — soil health, water retention, reduced runoff — not just cheap calories. Farmers need to be rewarded for stewardship, so we can better support the system today.
There is still significant scrutiny around whether regenerative practices are delivering measurable gains. How is this working on the ground for you in terms of data sources, input use, yield stability and farmer income?
Hardly any farmer this year is going to be profitable — it’s devastating, and we’ll see the highest bankruptcies in a long time. Any incremental income goes straight to the bottom line. We’re seeing huge demand from farmers to participate. There was skepticism — a lot of carbon market promises didn’t materialize — but we are about to hit payments of about $100 million to farmers, operating in nine countries. After three to four years of payments, farmers are responding because it’s in their economic interest, and results are being seen.
On the data side, we’ve been doing this since 2016 with national labs, aggregating weather, satellite, public and private datasets, soil samples, yield and inputs. We can quantify the emission profile of grain and validate it with field evidence, satellite monitoring and farmer data. That allows us to measure impact and pay farmers based on it. Buyers can reduce the carbon emission profile of their feedstocks (Scope 3 emissions) and meet Corporate SBTi targets (Science-based Targets), while farmers get rewarded for outcomes.
There are many technologies promising value to farmers, but trust and data-sharing remain major barriers to adoption. How are you maintaining farmer trust while addressing concerns around how their data is used?
We work mainly through farmer-owned cooperatives and trusted advisors, not directly with farmers. If a cooperative is involved in assessing a farm, that adds integrity. Farmers enrol, and we pay them for outcomes. Trust comes from delivering and working through trusted channels. Riceland Foods, a 100-year-old farmer-owned cooperative, was our first partner. We had to earn their trust, and we’ve paid close to $4 million a year for the last three years to Arkansas rice farmers.
We also have to protect farmer data. Farmers are skeptical — when someone asks for their data, the question is why and how it will help them. Historically, programs have asked farmers to prove sustainability without offering value, and there’s concern that data will be used against them. We have to be mindful of that. The solution is to create value. In rice cultivation, alternative wetting and drying reduces water use and methane, creating carbon benefits we can pay for. Similarly in corn and wheat crops, the primary drive of emissions is over-fertilization. Now farmers are compensated while improving outcomes — that changes the equation.
Talk us through the regions you are most present in and the strategy for the next two years. Where do you see the most potential for this level of technology in the market?
We operate from Canada to Argentina, and in Australia, with expansion into Indonesia, the Philippines, and, up next, potentially Thailand and South Africa. That covers everything from canola to sugarcane — all major row crops like wheat, corn and soybeans.
Next year, the U.S. biofuel economy will start to take off, driven by tax credits. That expands our market. We already have the data to prove net negative outcomes and can now quantify that for biofuel producers. Our model is to help farmers move from price takers to price makers — using data to optimize inputs and monetize ecosystem benefits alongside grain production.
With that link between food and energy increasingly apparent, what partnerships or infrastructure will be most important to make the system workable beyond just the early adopters?
We need to move beyond pilot projects. We know how to do this — we have the science and partnerships — but the current system doesn’t make it easy for new companies to participate. We’re building collaborations with registries and companies to simplify participation. We’ve started a scope-sharing network with Kelenova, Ahold Delhaize and Bartlett, allowing new buyers to co-participate alongside companies like Nestlé, Mars and Pepsi without going through pilots. We’re working with groups to create systems that bring validators and methodologies together.
The biggest challenge has been getting more data and doing more with it. We haven’t seen anyone able to translate research trials at scale before. Arva can. We have millions of acres of observations and see the world as microclimates, not geographic boundaries. We can link soil performance, farmer profitability and emissions. If we can identify interventions and translate them into a downstream value proposition, that’s a major opportunity for our farmers. We are just so motivated to keep making progress and working with more farmers, partners and companies to see these benefits.
