Stuart Austin hosting a panel discussion at the recent Global Ag Investing forum in New York with Andrew Coppin RanchBot (The US sister company of FarmBot), Marc Robert and Lee West.

LIVESTOCK are still proving to be a hard sell to corporates investing in “natural capital”, according to observations from a recent ag investment forum in the United States.

A large group of Australian agricultural companies attended last month’s Global Ag Investing forum in New York, which had a strong influence from funds and corporates looking to invest in “natural capital”.

While natural capital markets are relatively immature and still trying to find their way, it generally refers to activities that help natural assets like soil, air, water and biodiversity.

New South Wales-based asset manager and advisor Stuart Austin was at the forum trying to meet with potential investors in Australian farmland through his new company Audacious Agriculture – which is largely focused on regenerative grazing and natural capital.

He said communicating the benefits of investing in grazing livestock was a tough sell, with the overwhelming majority of presentations focused on tree nut investment, particularly macadamia and almond plantations.

Audacious Agriculture principal Stuart Austin.

“That is all going to plant-based foods and alternative milks,” Mr Austin said.

“I asked how they were planning on improving natural capital in an almond orchard and it was mainly about growing grass and other vegetation between the trees. I think that is fundamentally at odds with building natural capital.

“My goal was to highlight to them is that there is not a healthy functioning ecosystem in the world that is devoid of animals.

“Whether it is an almond orchard or anything else, you will generally need livestock in the system if we are genuine about rebuilding natural capital and agriculture being around in 100 years.”

More than methane scaring investment

Mr Austin said many of the companies attending the forum were interested in Australian farmland. He said while the funds themselves did not have an ideological opposition to red meat, they were concerned about groups that did.

“It is not just methane that is on the nose, it is a perception from shareholders and the general public that cows are entirely raised in feedlots and that you shouldn’t be investing in livestock,” he said.

“One of them said to me that ‘no one cares about a dead crop, but everyone cares about a dead cow’. They don’t want to hit a drought, some of their cows to die and they end up on the front page of the New York Times.

“So, I think we have a challenge in front of us to bring institutional investment into the beef industry.”

Cattle can underpin natural capital improvements

While the concept of natural capital is still being developed and there is concern about livestock, Mr Austin said he believed livestock should be a core focus natural capital investments.

“There is an opportunity in grazing operations to layer natural capital projects over the top of livestock enterprise, potentially even renewable energy – rather than buying specifically for livestock or for solar panels,” he said.

“It is the cows that create the mineral cycling to build the carbon and restore biodiversity. There is enough evidence to suggest that livestock managed the right way will have a positive impact on carbon and biodiversity.”

Cash returns still the main focus

Beef industry executive David Foote was at the conference on behalf of Laguna Bay, for which he is a non-executive director.

David Foote

“At this year’s Global Ag Investing conference in New York, the focus among institutional investors remained firmly on cash returns rather than capital appreciation—and certainly not on whether livestock, such as beef cattle, were in or out of scope,” he said.

“Importantly, where beef was not included in a strategy, it was not due to an anti-animal agriculture bias. Instead, it reflected investor preferences around cash flow profiles and a perceived higher risk. Timber assets were clearly favoured, followed by permanent crops, broadacre cropping, and dairy under active review.

Mr Foote said sustainability featured strongly throughout the event, however, investors were not willing to take a lower return for environmental outcomes.

“While many North American funds profiled impact-focused strategies, they were not signalling a willingness to trade off returns for environmental outcomes. That mindset appeared more prominent among European, North Asian, and some Australian institutions,” he said.

“Still, investors broadly expect sustainability to be embedded—not at the expense of returns, but because it’s increasingly fundamental to risk management. At Laguna Bay, we believe that our impact initiatives are not just about doing the right thing; they are essential for managing regulatory, transition, and market-access risks. In many cases, we represent our customers’ Scope 3 emissions, so being ahead of the curve is not optional—it’s future-proofing.

“Interestingly, some of the “regenerative” practices highlighted at the conference—such as stubble retention—are routine in Australian farming and have been for decades.

“Livestock, too, deserves a more nuanced view. In many low-emissions farming systems, managed grazing plays a critical role in soil health, nutrient cycling, and carbon outcomes. Rather than being excluded, grazing is increasingly seen as part of the solution.

“Laguna Bay is recognised as an impact-aligned manager—not because we claim the label, but because long-term sustainability and stewardship are built into our investment DNA. It’s business as usual, and investors are taking notice.”