From Field to Function: How Production Decisions Shape Nutrition
As nutrition becomes central to health-driven food systems, farmers and upstream suppliers must rethink genetics, soil health, and post-harvest practices to meet rising demand for nutritionally optimized foods.
If the food system is being asked to support better health outcomes, then we need to talk about where nutrition starts. Not in the kitchen. Not at the processor. But at the farm.
The idea that upstream production practices influence downstream nutritional outcomes isn't new. But in the context of "food as health," it's becoming more relevant and increasingly scrutinized. As healthcare stakeholders, food manufacturers, and retailers look to nutrition as a lever for wellness and disease prevention, the implications for agrifood production are coming into sharper focus.
Connecting Production to Nutrition: What the Evidence Suggests
Scientific research shows that production choices can influence the nutritional quality of both plant- and animal-based foods. While there is still much to learn, several areas of emerging consensus are worth highlighting:
- Genetics matter: Different crop varieties can exhibit substantial differences in micronutrient density. For example, some wheat cultivars vary in zinc and iron concentrations by over 30% (Velu et al., 2018).
- Soil and fertility programs influence uptake of key micronutrients like selenium, iodine, and zinc—nutrients with well-established links to immune function and metabolic health (Alloway, 2008).
- Livestock feeds shape nutritional outcomes from fatty acid profiles to amino essential amino acid profiles. Dairy diets calibrated for metabolizable protein and essential amino acids directly influence milk protein quality. Beef, pork, and poultry rations tailored for amino acid balance can change meat protein composition which impacts the nutrient value consumers receive. Meanwhile grass-fed beef has shown to improve fatty acid profiles relative to grain fed beef.
- Post-harvest handling, including storage duration, temperature, and light exposure, can alter nutrient retention in vegetables and grains. For example, prolonged storage of spinach under suboptimal conditions can significantly reduce its folate and vitamin C content (Rickman et al., 2007).
These findings don't suggest a simple formula. Nutritional outcomes are the result of many interdependent factors, and variation exists even within single production systems.
A Note on Regenerative vs. Conventional Production
Some studies have reported differences in nutrient content between crops grown in regenerative systems versus conventional ones. However, results vary, and more peer-reviewed, controlled research is needed to isolate the specific drivers of those differences (Montgomery et al., 2022).
Rather than framing this as a contest between systems, it's more productive to focus on the mechanisms at play: soil organic matter, nutrient cycling, microbial activity, and plant varietal choice. These are the factors that may influence nutritional outcomes regardless of the label attached to the farm practices.
Why This Matters for Agrifood Stakeholders
As health claims become more central to food marketing, procurement, and even policy, upstream suppliers may be asked to meet new expectations:
- Can nutrient content be measured at the point of production?
- Can feed or fertilizer programs be optimized for nutritional outcomes?
- Will there be demand for crop or livestock varieties linked to specific health claims?
While we are still early in answering these questions, the direction of travel is clear. Stakeholders across the supply chain, from input providers to processors, will benefit from anticipating how health-centric food systems may reshape specifications, premiums, and product design.
DIAL's Role in the Exploration
At DIAL Ventures, we are not advocating for a single solution. But we are asking the question: what innovations, data systems, and value chain partnerships will be required if the market begins to value nutrition as a function of how food is produced?
We're exploring these questions in our research and will bring them forward in our upcoming startup studio cycle. For those upstream in the agrifood chain, the time to engage isn't when new health specs arrive. It is now, while the rules are still being written.
References
- Alloway, B. J. (2008). Zinc in Soils and Crop Nutrition. International Zinc Association.
- Daley, C. A., et al. (2010). A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef. Nutrition Journal.
- Karsten, H. D., et al. (2010). Production performance and egg quality of pasture- vs. cage-raised laying hens. Poultry Science.
- Montgomery, D. R., et al. (2022). Soil health and nutrient density: preliminary comparison of regenerative and conventional farming. PeerJ.
- Rickman, J. C., et al. (2007). Nutritional comparison of fresh, frozen, and canned fruits and vegetables. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture.
- Velu, G., et al. (2018). Genetic dissection of grain zinc and iron concentration in bread wheat. Scientific Reports.
If the food system is being asked to support better health outcomes, then we need to talk about where nutrition starts. Not in the kitchen. Not at the processor. But at the farm.
The idea that upstream production practices influence downstream nutritional outcomes isn't new. But in the context of "food as health," it's becoming more relevant and increasingly scrutinized. As healthcare stakeholders, food manufacturers, and retailers look to nutrition as a lever for wellness and disease prevention, the implications for agrifood production are coming into sharper focus.
Connecting Production to Nutrition: What the Evidence Suggests
Scientific research shows that production choices can influence the nutritional quality of both plant- and animal-based foods. While there is still much to learn, several areas of emerging consensus are worth highlighting:
- Genetics matter: Different crop varieties can exhibit substantial differences in micronutrient density. For example, some wheat cultivars vary in zinc and iron concentrations by over 30% (Velu et al., 2018).
- Soil and fertility programs influence uptake of key micronutrients like selenium, iodine, and zinc—nutrients with well-established links to immune function and metabolic health (Alloway, 2008).
- Livestock feeds shape nutritional outcomes from fatty acid profiles to amino essential amino acid profiles. Dairy diets calibrated for metabolizable protein and essential amino acids directly influence milk protein quality. Beef, pork, and poultry rations tailored for amino acid balance can change meat protein composition which impacts the nutrient value consumers receive. Meanwhile grass-fed beef has shown to improve fatty acid profiles relative to grain fed beef.
- Post-harvest handling, including storage duration, temperature, and light exposure, can alter nutrient retention in vegetables and grains. For example, prolonged storage of spinach under suboptimal conditions can significantly reduce its folate and vitamin C content (Rickman et al., 2007).
These findings don't suggest a simple formula. Nutritional outcomes are the result of many interdependent factors, and variation exists even within single production systems.
A Note on Regenerative vs. Conventional Production
Some studies have reported differences in nutrient content between crops grown in regenerative systems versus conventional ones. However, results vary, and more peer-reviewed, controlled research is needed to isolate the specific drivers of those differences (Montgomery et al., 2022).
Rather than framing this as a contest between systems, it's more productive to focus on the mechanisms at play: soil organic matter, nutrient cycling, microbial activity, and plant varietal choice. These are the factors that may influence nutritional outcomes regardless of the label attached to the farm practices.
Why This Matters for Agrifood Stakeholders
As health claims become more central to food marketing, procurement, and even policy, upstream suppliers may be asked to meet new expectations:
- Can nutrient content be measured at the point of production?
- Can feed or fertilizer programs be optimized for nutritional outcomes?
- Will there be demand for crop or livestock varieties linked to specific health claims?
While we are still early in answering these questions, the direction of travel is clear. Stakeholders across the supply chain, from input providers to processors, will benefit from anticipating how health-centric food systems may reshape specifications, premiums, and product design.
DIAL's Role in the Exploration
At DIAL Ventures, we are not advocating for a single solution. But we are asking the question: what innovations, data systems, and value chain partnerships will be required if the market begins to value nutrition as a function of how food is produced?
We're exploring these questions in our research and will bring them forward in our upcoming startup studio cycle. For those upstream in the agrifood chain, the time to engage isn't when new health specs arrive. It is now, while the rules are still being written.
References
- Alloway, B. J. (2008). Zinc in Soils and Crop Nutrition. International Zinc Association.
- Daley, C. A., et al. (2010). A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef. Nutrition Journal.
- Karsten, H. D., et al. (2010). Production performance and egg quality of pasture- vs. cage-raised laying hens. Poultry Science.
- Montgomery, D. R., et al. (2022). Soil health and nutrient density: preliminary comparison of regenerative and conventional farming. PeerJ.
- Rickman, J. C., et al. (2007). Nutritional comparison of fresh, frozen, and canned fruits and vegetables. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture.
- Velu, G., et al. (2018). Genetic dissection of grain zinc and iron concentration in bread wheat. Scientific Reports.