Content uploaded by Rebecca Duff
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rebecca Duff on Sep 25, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
IMPROVING THE WORLD THROUGH ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION AUG 2019
PATH TO 2060:
Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry
Innovation’s Role in Sustainable Growth
Rebecca Duff and Michael J. Lenox, UVA Darden School of Business
BATTEN REPORT
SNAPSHOT
Scientists say that global warming
must be kept below two degrees
Celsius to avoid significant global
disruptions. Getting there will require
near total decarbonization of all
economic activity by 2060.
Agriculture, forestry, and other
land use represent 24% of global
greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock
and nitrogen fertilizers are key drivers
of agriculture emissions.
Decarbonization of agriculture will
require significant innovation and
shifts in behavior in the way we grow,
distribute, and consume food.
5
0
%
R
E
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
6.32
5.77
4.80 4.80
5.08
5.08
2.92
3.85
27%
11%
13%
39%
10%
Meat and N Fertilizer-Free Scenario
Agriculture Emissions (Gtons/year)
Business
as Usual
Reduce Meat
Consumption
+ N Fertilizers
100% REDUCTION
Global Agriculture Emissions
by Source (2016)
NOTE: FAO 2030 and
2050 projections for
enteric fermentation,
manure management, &
N fertilizer emissions
reduced by 50% (2030)
and 100% (2050).
Decarbonizing these
three sources would
signi cantly reduce total
agriculture emissions.
Enteric Fermentation
Manure
Synthetic Fertilizers
Burning; Crop Residues;
and Cultivation of Organic
Soils
Rice Cultivation
Source: FAOSTAT, Emission Data for Enteric Fermentation, Manure Management, and
Synthetic Nitrogen Fertilizers.
Source: FAOSTAT, http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GT/visualize
2010
2020
2030
2040
2000
2050
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 2
In the 2015 Paris climate agreement, 175 coun-
tries pledged to commit to greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission reductions in order to limit global warm-
ing to no more than two degrees Celsius from
preindustrial levels. According to the atmospheric
scientists, achieving this goal requires limiting total
cumulative global emissions to 2,900 gigatons of
CO2. Since the Industrial Revolution, global CO2
emissions have reached 2,100 gigatons; this leaves
a carbon “budget” of 800 gigatons. Assuming the
continued emission of GHGs in the near future, stay-
ing within this carbon budget will require near-
total decarbonization of global economic activity by
2060.1
e agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) sector,
as dened by the United Nations (UN) International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), accounts for 24% of global GHG
emissions, with agriculture representing the majority of them.2
In this report, we assess the potential for complete decarboniza‑
tion of the agriculture industry by 2060.3 We dene decarbon‑
ization broadly to cover the reduction of methane (CH4) and
nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions, which represent 22% of global
GHGs4 and 82% of total agriculture GHG emissions.5 Live‑
stock farming, which produces methane, and the use of nitrogen
fertilizer, which produces nitrous oxide, represent the majority of
global GHG emissions.
CH4 and N2O are potent GHGs. Global warming poten‑
tial (GWP), which is the energy that a gas will absorb over a
100‑year time frame relative to 1 ton of CO2, is 28 for CH4 and
265 for N2O.6 is means that CH4 and N2O are more potent
than CO2 even though they represent only a quarter of all gas
emissions worldwide (CO2 represents the remaining percentage
WHY 2060?
UVA Darden’s Business Innovation and Climate
Change Initiative facilitates dialogue across a diverse
set of stakeholders from business, nonprots, govern‑
ment, and academia about the role of innovation in
addressing climate change. In support of this initiative,
the Batten Institute for Entrepreneurship and Innova‑
tion is publishing a series of reports that explore tech‑
nology innovation and the drivers behind the market
disruptions needed to decarbonize our economy. ese
reports synthesize research of industry sectors that
hold promise for innovation and signicant reductions
in carbon dioxide emissions, including transportation,
energy, industrials, and agriculture.
Visit www.darden.virginia.edu/innovation-climate/
to learn more about the Business Innovation and
Climate Change Initiative and to hear a podcast
discussing the ndings of this report.
UVA DARDEN’S BUSINESS INNOVATION
AND CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVE
at 76%).7 While much of the public focus has been on CO2miti‑
gation, addressing agriculture‑driven CH4 and N2O emissions is
critical to mitigating climate change.
Fortunately, there are opportunities in this sector to signicantly
reduce CH4 and N2O emissions. We focus our research on in
situ GHG‑emissions and two GHG‑intensive sources, livestock
farming and soil management.
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 3
IN THIS PATH TO 2060 REPORT, we (1) review current industry
practice, (2) identify decarbonization opportunities, (3) charac‑
terize the US and global markets, and (4) explore the clean tech‑
nologies and innovations that oer disruptive potential. We then
assess the levers that could determine the rate of clean technol‑
ogy adoption moving forward and conclude with some thoughts
on the timing of decarbonization, as well as the accelerators and
roadblocks to meeting the 2060 goal.
Research conducted for this report is based on publicly available
literature, websites, and datasets; attendance at the 2019 World
Agri‑Tech and Animal AgTech Innovation Summits in San
Francisco, CA; and discussions with industry experts.
PATH TO 2060 KEY FINDINGS:
Future State of the Agriculture Industry
• By 2050, global food production will need to increase by
49% in order to support the projected worldwide popula‑
tion.
• Agricultural methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emis‑
sions could increase as much as 60% by 2030 if no action is
taken to mitigate climate change.
Livestock Farming and Mitigation Measures
• Livestock is the biggest source of agriculture emissions.
CH4 represents 50% of these emissions, driven largely by
enteric fermentation and manure management. Beef and
dairy cattle account for 60% of all livestock emissions.
• Approaches to decarbonizing livestock farming include:
capturing the methane and producing bioenergy; adding
seaweed and probiotics to animal diets; and breeding low‑
CH4 cows.
• Plant‑based alternatives and lab‑grown meat have the
potential to signicantly disrupt the meat industry, but must
rst clear cost and taste barriers.
Soil Management and Mitigation Measures
• About 40% of the soil used for agriculture around the world
is degraded. Excessive use of nitrogen fertilizer alone, par‑
tially to increase yields under these conditions, is responsible
for 13% of global N2O emissions.
• Best practices, such as cover crops and regenerative farming,
help to reduce synthetic nitrogen inputs. Precision farming,
including the use of drones, can monitor soil and plant
health, ensuring that the right amount of nitrogen fertilizer
is applied at the right rate and right time.
• Gene editing holds promise to turn commodity crops into
nitrogen‑xing plants, and indoor vertical farms are gaining
in popularity for their ability to go soil‑less while ensuring
food safety and meeting demand for local food.
Levers for Agriculture Decarbonization
• About one‑third of food produced each year is lost or
wasted. Properly storing and more eectively distributing
food in developing countries while educating retailers and
consumers in developed countries could avoid 8% of global
GHG emissions attributed to waste.
• Levers for accelerating decarbonization include: greater
consumer demand for sustainable alternatives; public‑sector
R&D investment and incentives for eective land man‑
agement; brand inuence over supply chains; expansion of
carbon sinks; and the creation of a carbon trading market.
• Decarbonizing the agriculture sector by 2060 seems un‑
likely, given the complexity of stakeholders involved in the
food production chain. It will require a globalized eort to
change how we farm, distribute, and consume food.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 4
THE CURRENT STATE OF AGRICULTURE
IN 2017, THE WORLD POPULATION reached nearly 7.6 billion
people.8 e UN predicts there will be 8.6 billion people by 2030
and 9.8 billion by 2050.9 With this growth in population comes
an increased demand for food. e UN Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) estimates that by 2050, 49% more food
will need to be produced compared to 2012 global production.10
How will farming operations and distribution scale to eectively
and sustainably meet these growing needs?
Complicating matters is the fact that as developing countries
grow in wealth, they tend to shift to more protein‑rich diets.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation
and Development’s (OECD’s) FAO Agricultural Outlook
2018–2027, rising per capita income in developing countries will
drive demand for beef and dairy products.11 Global expansion
of livestock, particularly dairy and meat production, and the
feed production to support this growth, leads to greater GHG
emissions, as evidenced by CH4 and N2O emissions increasing
17% between 1990 and 2005, according to the IPCC.12 Looking
ahead, the IPCC warns that agricultural N2O emissions could
grow between 35% and 60% by 2030 due to increased fertilizer
use and manure production. Livestock‑sourced methane could
rise 60% by 2030, if CH4 emissions grow in proportion to pro‑
jected increases in livestock numbers.13
No other industry is so directly impacted by climate change,
which further complicates matters. Signicant shifts in tempera‑
ture, weather patterns, water accessibility, and pest populations
put stress on agriculture production, which already faces chal‑
lenges in feeding the global population. ere are already signs
of this happening in countries like Australia, where persistent
hot and dry conditions have contributed to deterioration of
pasture conditions, rising grain prices, and low water supplies.
While other countries around the world are seeing increases
in production year over year, estimates published by the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA) suggest that Australian
2019 beef and veal production will be 20% lower than that in
2014.14 Pockets of Australian livestock farming may never re‑
cover. In Queensland, where farmers were already battling years
of drought, record‑breaking rains ooded the region earlier this
year, leaving 500,000 cattle dead in their wake.15
According to one study published in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, for every 1°C increase in global
mean temperature, global yields of wheat, maize, rice, and
soybeans would, on average, be reduced by 6.0%, 3.2%, 7.4%,
and 3.1%, respectively.16 Some regions could be hit harder than
others. For example, the study suggests that in the United States,
maize production could be reduced by more than 10% with a
1°C increase.17
On a positive note, the AFOLU sector is unique in that it
includes carbon sinks that remove CO2, primarily through
forests. According to FAO, carbon sequestration osets about
20% of agriculture emissions.18 Net emissions from defor‑
estation dropped 25% between 2000 and 2015 as a result of a
slowdown in deforestation and more eective management.19
Yet, forest degradation and tree cutting still represent between
10% and 11% of net global GHG emissions.20 e protection,
maintenance, and expansion of carbon sinks will be critical to
reaching a carbon balance on the planet. We discuss the carbon
sink opportunity later in this report, following the discussion on
decarbonization options.
Agriculture is positioned to substantially impact the speed and
trajectory of climate change, and to benet directly from those
eorts. Best practices and greater eciencies will help decrease
emissions, but to decarbonize by 2060, we need to think in dras‑
tically dierent ways about how we grow and consume food.
2.2 BILLION
MORE PEOPLE
LIVING ON EARTH BY 2050,
AND 49%
MORE FOOD
NEEDED TO FEED THE GLOBAL POPULATION.
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 5
8%
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION SOURCES
Methane represents the biggest source of livestock GHG emis‑
sions: FAO estimates 50%, with N2O and CO2 splitting the re‑
maining 50%.25 Manure management and enteric fermentation,
dened later in this section, contribute more than half of these
emissions.26 Feed production to support livestock represents 41%
of the remaining emissions, while energy consumption accounts
for a small portion (5%).27 Some of the solutions proposed
for livestock management could also impact demand for feed
production, potentially reducing emissions in those operations
as well.
Several species contribute to livestock methane emissions,
but cattle (beef and dairy) represent the largest share, at 60%,
followed by pigs, chickens, bualo, small ruminants, and other
poultry.28 Beef meat is the second most carbon‑intensive (i.e.,
emissions per protein) livestock behind bualo. Cattle milk is
70% less intensive than beef.29
THE TERM “LIVESTOCK” PRIMARILY refers to cattle or dairy
cows, chickens, goats, pigs, horses, and sheep. Livestock farming
represents 80% of agriculture land use, when accounting for
pasture grazing and feed production.21
Domestication of animals dates back to early civilization. Cattle
in particular were used to not only provide meat but to work on
the farm. e principles behind livestock farming didn’t change
much until the late 1700s, when British agriculturalist Robert
Bakewell introduced selective breeding, a discovery that would
serve as an important rst step toward today’s scientic methods
for controlling livestock quality and production. In the decades
that followed, improved nutrition, disease‑control measures, and
genetic engineering have allowed livestock farming to keep up
with global demand.
By the 1900s, expansion of railways and refrigeration technology
in the United States opened up the distribution of agriculture
products, shifting the industry to more centralized production at
a commercial scale. is allowed for larger, manufactured meat
production, making meat more available across the country. Beef
and chicken consumption got a boost mid‑century with the
introduction of fast‑food chains like McDonald’s and Kentucky
Fried Chicken.22
Yet, after peaking in the 1970s, per capita US beef consumption
has dropped by one‑third, while chicken consumption continues
to grow.23 Despite its more recent decline, beef continues to be a
top choice on the American menu and is becoming more pop‑
ular in developing countries that have a rising middle class and
access to new wealth. e rise in chicken demand comes with
its own environmental concerns, but with regards to land impact
and carbon emissions, beef remains the worst oender. Accord‑
ing to the World Resources Institute (WRI), beef production
is 7 times more land‑ and GHG‑intensive than chicken and 20
times more intensive than plant‑based proteins.24
LIVESTOCK FARMING
Figure 1: Animal Methane Emission Sources
Source: FAO, By the numbers: GHG emissions by livestock,
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/
BUFFALO
meat and milk
SMALL RUMINANTS
meat and milk
CHICKEN
meat and eggs
OTHER POULTRY
and non-edible products
PIG
small ruminant
meat and milk
6%,
41%
BEEF
DAIRY
20%
8%
9%
8%
6%
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 6
According to FAO, CO2‑equivalent emissions from enteric
fermentation have been steadily rising since 2001 (Figure 3).
GLOBAL TRENDS
According to FAO, developing countries have experienced meat
and milk consumption growth rates of 5.1% and 3.6%, respec‑
tively, between 1970 and 2007.35 is growth was driven largely
by East Asia, which saw consumption growth rates for these
commodities reach close to 7% during the same time period.
Overall, East Asia saw a sharp increase in per capita consump‑
tion (kg of commodity foods/year)36 likely tied to expansion of
the middle class and access to new wealth, and largely driven by
a booming Chinese economy.
Growth has slowed in developed countries including the United
States, yet the US continues to be the largest producer and
consumer of livestock products, at 18% and 20% respectively.
According to USDA, the United States, Brazil, the EU, and
China represented a 60% share of both production and con‑
sumption in 2018.37
Looking to 2050, FAO predicts that growth in global meat con‑
sumption will slow due to slower projected population growth,
more modest growth in per capita meat consumption (partic‑
ularly in countries that were previously driving growth), the
persistence of poverty, and cultural preferences against meat in
some developing countries despite projected population increas‑
es (e.g., India).38 Dairy, however, holds potential for signicant
growth in developing countries with per capita consumptions
e storage of livestock manure emits methane, from anaerobic
decomposition of organic matter, and N2O through nitrication
or denitrication.30 N2O is also released during manure soil
application. e approach to managing manure on‑site depends
largely on farm size. Smaller farms tend to collect and spread
solid manure daily or weekly while larger farms typically have
sizable lagoons for long‑term liqueed manure storage pending
application to elds or o‑site transport. Emissions tend to be
higher from liquid treatment systems.31 One analysis of dairy
farms in Wisconsin showed that large farms deploying liquid
storage are 2‑to‑3 times more GHG intensive (CO2‑eq/ton
manure) than smaller farms managing solid manure.32 e meth‑
ane released during liquid storage represented 70% of larger
farms’ emissions.33
According to FAO, CO2‑equivalent emissions from manure
management have been climbing since 2001 (Figure 2).
Enteric fermentation happens in the ruminant digestive track
where plant material is digested, emitting methane in the pro‑
cess. e most common pathway for methane release is belching.
Methane levels are closely tied to feed quality and composition,
but also to breed. Cows typically eat a mixture of grass hay,
alfalfa hay, and grains, as well as corn and grass silage (fermented
pasture grass). e ratio of these food sources, as well as any
vitamins and minerals added to the mix, impact digestion, and
thus methane production. In addition to diet, recent scientic
research suggests that there are genetic dierences among cows
that directly inuence methane production.34
Figure 2: Manure Management Global Emissions
Source: FAOSTAT, Emissions‑Agriculture, Manure Management
Figure 3: Enteric Fermentation Global Emissions
Source: FAOSTAT, Emissions‑Agriculture, Enteric Fermentation
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 7
Meat and dairy production and consumption growth rates will
vary greatly depending on region, but overall, there will be an
absolute global increase by 2050. Carbon emissions are tied to
this growth and will continue to rise without innovative, mitiga‑
tion measures.
OPTIONS TO DECARBONIZE
For livestock, the immediate solutions fall into two categories:
methane capture/utilization and feed modication and digestive
support. What if you could modify the cow itself or avoid eating
it altogether and still get the protein needed for a balanced diet?
Radical solutions are emerging, changing the very denition of
a domestic cow, and if commercially scaled, these could drasti‑
cally cut methane emissions around the world. Methane capture
could oer a new renewable energy source to utilities, and thus
a new revenue stream for farmers. In this section, we explore
several emerging approaches toward livestock decarbonization.
Methane Capture and Bioenergy. For centuries, farmers
have been storing manure to apply as fertilizer on feed‑crop
elds. As previously discussed, a signicant amount of methane
is released during the storage process, particularly in liquid form.
According to EPA, the majority of manure emissions come from
dairy and swine farms. Anaerobic digesters are closed systems
that can be used to capture the biogas, using the methane as
an energy source for heat or electricity. Adding other organic
wastes, such as food and crop residues, can increase biogas pro‑
duction.46 e biogas replaces otherwise piped utility‑supplied
natural gas. While the burning of it releases CO2, it avoids the
methane otherwise emitted from long‑term manure storage.
EPA estimates that as much as 85% of methane emissions could
be eliminated with the use of digesters.47
However, only 248 farms are using digesters to date, and most of
those are dairy operations.48 e majority of these farms use the
biogas for electricity generation or combined heat and power,
where excess heat from the electricity generation is used to heat
the digester or adjacent buildings.49
currently well below that in developed countries.39 For example,
FAO predicts that India will be a driver of growth in dairy con‑
sumption; today it accounts for 15% of world production, and
this share could rise to more than 20% by 2050.40
Africa nds itself in a unique position, where signicant growth
is predicted for both production and consumption. Large
increases in population—which could double by 2050 in some
countries—urbanization, income growth, and shifts in diet will
drive demand, and thus production.41 FAO estimates that Af‑
rican demand for meat and milk will increase 261% and 399%,
respectively, by 2050.42
To grow Africa’s agricultural output will require signicant
investment in inputs and infrastructure. According to analysis
by McKinsey and Company, eight times more fertilizer will
be needed to support the growth, along with billions of dollars
in irrigation, storage, and other infrastructure and government
policies that improve distribution and trade.43 Recognizing the
importance of this region in ensuring food security, private‑ and
public‑sector investments are owing into Africa.
Yet many of the African countries face challenges of undernour‑
ishment and food insecurity. Further, the impacts of climate
change will be most greatly felt in more arid regions. Africa’s
ability to support increased demand will also depend on land
and resource availability. According to the African Development
Bank, these resources exist. Specically, 400 million hectares of
Savannah land could hold the key to increasing in‑country pro‑
duction and reducing reliance on imports.44 e Bank’s Technol‑
ogies for African Agricultural Transformation for the Savannahs
(TAAT‑S) initiative was developed in 2017 to cultivate just 16
million hectares of Savannah land for maize, soybean, and live‑
stock production.45 Organizations like FAO are partnering with
USAID and several African governments to ensure sustainable
development of the livestock market, including support for local
communities.
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 8
relationship between these factors. According to FAO, improve‑
ments in productivity could result in a methane reduction of
30%.57 Healthier, higher‑producing dairy cows means a smaller
herd is needed to meet demand.
Genetic Breeding. In Canada, scientists are working to
improve feed eciency and reduce methane emissions through
selective breeding. In theory, it’s not that much dierent than
Blackwell’s work in the late 1700s to choose and breed animals
that are healthy and productive. Yet, this approach to breeding
goes even further, down to the cellular level.
In 2009, the domestic cattle genome was sequenced,58 provid‑
ing scientists and farmers the opportunity to identify the most
productive beef and dairy cattle in the herd, and breed based on
desired traits. For Genome Canada, one of those traits is lower
methane production. About 10,000 cows are currently being
monitored for methane production, with scientists collecting ge‑
netic material to identify the markers associated with low meth‑
ane production, in addition to overall health and productivity.
Other researchers are working to identify organisms found in
the rumen (the rst of two stomachs where initial digestion
takes place with the help of bacteria and microrganisms) that
produce methane and isolate the associated microbial genes
for selective breeding to reduce emissions.59 e hope is that
through this selective breeding based on genome sequencing,
farmers can cultivate more productive, low‑GHG‑gas herds.60
e goal of the Canadian genome project is to distribute the
“environmentally responsible” genes more broadly, particularly in
regions of the world that otherwise would not have access to this
kind of research.61 Global distribution of a patent‑free technol‑
ogy would more quickly scale this solution, but even so, selective
breeding takes time.
e EPA estimates that biogas recovery systems are viable op‑
tions at more than 8,000 dairy and hog farms across the United
States.50 One of the barriers to broader adoption of digester
technologies is cost. e protability of a farm using a digest‑
er depends on its ability to recover initial capital costs and to
establish a long‑term revenue stream to cover operational costs.
Several states have oered incentive programs with varying
levels of success.51
To address the capital cost barrier, Virginia’s Dominion Energy
is partnering with Smitheld Foods, the largest pig and pork
producer in the world, to pilot several biogas recovery and ener‑
gy distribution projects in a new venture called Align Renewable
Natural Gas. e farmers cap their lagoons and own the anaer‑
obic digesters that then provide the methane gas to Dominion
to process and distribute to consumers. In return, the farmers
are provided a long‑term contract with Dominion that ensures a
revenue stream.52
Feed Additives and Probiotics. Feed additives can reduce
the number of microorganisms responsible for methane produc‑
tion. e corn, soybean, and grass typically eaten by cows cause
digestion challenges that lead to more emissions. Viable addi‑
tives and supplements include natural substances, compounds,
fats, and oils. Scientists at UC Davis are exploring the use of
seaweed in cattle feed, and to date, have produced an almost
60% reduction in dairy cow methane emissions.53 Testers of the
milk produced from seaweed‑fed cows indicated there was no
dierence in taste in the products.54
Other researchers are working on probiotics to reduce methane.
One company, Bezoar Laboratories, is working on a probiotic
that, when coupled with nitrate, decreases methane production
by 50%.55 e Paenibacillus fortis probiotic also increases pro‑
ductivity and reduces pathogens. Bezoar’s founder received the
Unilever Young Entrepreneurs Award in 2017 for the product.56
e key to the success of additives and supplements is that they
address not just the methane problem but also productivity and
the overall health of the cow. In fact, there seems to be a close
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 9
One of the primary concerns of consumers is the belief that
laboratory‑grown meat is not “natural.”64 A study conducted
by Faunalytics in January 2018 found that 66% of consumers
would try clean meat, with 40% willing to pay a premium for it,
but only when presented with education and positive messaging
around clean meat.65 Results from the study suggest that focus‑
ing on portraying clean meat as natural may be a lost cause, and
messages that focus on taste, animal welfare, and environmental
benets may do more to convince consumers.66
ere is a lot of excitement today around clean meat. We are
witnessing a growing number of start‑ups in the meat industry,
all of which are working to drive prices down and convince
consumers that clean meat is just as good as, if not better than,
conventional meat. Products range from beef to chicken to sh.
Several start‑ups are located in the United States, including:
Memphis Meats, Finless Foods, Wild Type, BlueNalu, Mission
Barns, New Age Meats, and Just Inc. Incumbent meat com‑
panies are also entering the alternative meat game. In January
2018, Tyson Foods announced its investment in Memphis
Meats.
ese new ventures are capitalizing on eorts by veggie‑burger
companies to change the way consumers view staples like beef
burgers and the chicken nugget. Customer acceptance will be
critical to the success of clean meat.
Clean Meat. Clean meat, in‑vitro meat, cell‑based meat,
cultured meat—these are all identiers being used by the food
industry for a new alternative to conventional meat products.
Clean meat is grown in a laboratory and is derived from a
sample of animal cells that are replicated in a culture outside of
the animal. In addition to zeroing out methane emissions from
enteric fermentation and manure, moving meat production from
pasture to laboratory opens up land for other types of farming
or reforestation and quells concerns around animal welfare and
antibiotic use. Perhaps not surprisingly, PETA has indicated
support of clean meat.62 Lastly, the laboratory process oers
faster production times compared to the time it takes to breed
and grow animals for slaughter.
e clean meat production process while complex, leverages
knowledge gained from years of research in the medical eld.
However, translating technologies used for medical processes to
support clean meat is a signicant challenge. ere are several
steps to producing clean meat: establishing cell lines, growing
cells in media, scaolding to dierentiate cell types and en‑
courage an organized pattern of growth, and scaling growth in
bioreactors.63 Today, each of these stages requires signicant and
expensive research and development.
ere are major challenges ahead, including price point and
consumer acceptance. e rst clean meat hamburger introduced
in 2013 by Dr. Mark Post of Maastricht University came with
a $330,000 price tag. Alternative meat products have been in
supermarkets for years, but have focused on using plant substi‑
tutes. While the adventurous, sustainably minded foodie might
embrace clean meat, the general population will likely be wary
of food grown in a laboratory. As clean meat commercializes and
scales, prices for product oerings should become more palat‑
able to the average consumer. During an industry panel at the
Animal AgTech Innovation Summit in March 2019, half of the
representatives agreed that clean meat will reach cost parity with
traditional beef within the next 10 years. Consumer perception
about lab‑grown meat may be the bigger barrier to broader
adoption.
WHEN PRESENTED WITH EDUCATION AND POSITIVE
MESSAGING AROUND CLEAN MEAT
60% OF CONSUMERS
WOULD TRY
CLEAN MEAT
WITH 40%
WILLING TO PAY
A PREMIUM
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 10
30% DUE TO
CROPLAND MISMANAGEMENT
35% DUE TO
LIVESTOCK OVERGRAZING
Many industry experts and policymakers believe that we are in
the advent of a fourth agricultural revolution; one that focuses
on sustainable farm management and relies on digital technol‑
ogies to achieve it.74 Smart farm technologies being introduced
today aim to maximize yields, while preserving soil health, and
to reduce distribution ineciencies. ese technologies will not
only help to ensure that production is able to scale to meet the
rising demand for food, but could also drive down GHG emis‑
sions in the process.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION SOURCES
Soil acts as both a GHG emission source and a sink. In fact,
soils hold more carbon than the atmosphere and all vegetation
combined, second only to our oceans.75 ere are several factors
that determine the carbon ux between the two. Biological
drivers of soil emissions include microbial activity, root respira‑
tion, and chemical decay processes.76 Flux rates are dependent on
several factors, but the most inuential are: humidity, tempera‑
ture, nutrient availability, and pH value.77 ese factors can
interplay with one another and they vary widely across the globe.
In general, increasing soil temperatures, widely uctuating mois‑
ture levels, and excessive nitrogen fertilizer application result in
increased N2O emissions.78 As such, climate region (temperate,
mediterranean, and sub‑tropical), as well as farming practices,
greatly inuence soil emissions.
PLANT CULTIVATION BEGAN ABOUT 10,000 years ago, when
humans left the nomadic hunter‑gatherer lifestyle behind for
one that provided more stable food sources in animal and crop
farming. is is commonly known as the rst agricultural revo‑
lution. Most researchers agree that agriculture largely originated
in the Fertile Crescent, which included modern‑day Iraq, Syria,
Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan. New ndings suggest that about
8,000 years ago, trade networks opened up between early farm‑
ing communities and agriculture thus began to expand beyond
the Fertile Crescent.67
e second agricultural revolution came in the 1800s, where
mechanization of farming and the use of chemical fertilizers
gave rise to large commercial farming operations and higher
production.68 Steel plows, grain elevators, and steam tractors
were some of the new technologies introduced during this era,
all of which focused on automation and eciency.69
e third revolution came in the 1970s and 1980s and intro‑
duced the world to genetically modied organisms (GMOs),
which also had the intent of increased production.70 Today, the
use of GMOs is wracked with controversy, and after centuries of
farming that focused on over fertilizing and over cultivating to
boost crop yield, the industry is beginning to realize the unin‑
tended consequence of soil degradation.
According to the Climate Opportunity Network, about 40% of
soils used for agriculture activities around the world are degrad‑
ed; 70% of topsoil critical to plant growth has vanished.71 Soil
degradation not only impacts eld production but also reduc‑
es the amount of carbon stored, which further amplies the
impacts of climate change. According to FAO, soil degradation
has released 78 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere.72
Livestock overgrazing is responsible for 35% of soil degradation,
but almost 30% is due to agriculture activities, namely cropland
mismanagement.73
SOIL MANAGEMENT
Figure 4: Global Soil Degradation
Source: DNV GL AS, UN Global Impact, and Sustainability,
Global Opportunity Report 2017, https://www.unglobalcompact.org/library/5081
40%
DEGRADED
SOILS USED FOR
AGRICULTURE
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 11
GLOBAL TRENDS
According to FAO, growth in global annual crop production is
expected to slow from 2.2% annually between 1961 and 2007 to
0.7% between 2030 and 2050, driven largely by reduced demand
in developed countries and East Asia.82 Despite slower growth,
we will continue to see an absolute increase in demand and pro‑
duction as population grows overall. Production increases come
from increasing yields as well as expanding the area of arable
land available for crop cultivation.83 By 2050, FAO estimates
that global major crop production will increase by almost 40%
and total harvested area will expand by 400 million hectares.84
Yet, at the same time, FAO also estimates a nearly 30% increase
in yields, or production per hectare of land, avoiding the need
for further deforestation to create farmland.85 is increase in
yields will depend largely on continued investment and progress
in agricultural research, particularly in those countries that are
already maximizing current technologies.
Higher yields and crop intensities typically require higher
rates of fertilizer. Over the last 50 years, nitrogen fertilizer was
responsible for 40% of per capita food production increases.86 In
the early 1960s, 34 million tons of nutrients (including nitrogen,
potassium, and phosphorous) were consumed for crop cultiva‑
tion. By 2050, this number could increase to 263 million tons.87
Developing countries are expected to represent 75% of fertilizer
consumption.88 As discussed in the livestock section, Africa is a
region ripe with opportunity but is also most vulnerable to the
eects of climate change.
According to FAO, world average per capita availability of
food for human consumption reached 2,770 kcal/person/day
by 2005/2007, which is well within nutritional guidelines.89 Yet,
there is global imbalance that needs to be addressed. About
500 million people are living in countries that average less than
2,000 kcal/person/day and another 1.9 billion are living in
countries that average more than 3,000 kcal/person/day.90 e
challenge ahead will be reducing the carbon footprint of farming
while nding ways to more eciently grow and distribute food
to meet the demands of expanding developing countries.
N2O is produced by denitrication (removal of nitrogen) under
anaerobic conditions. Soils naturally release N2O into the
atmosphere, but the addition of nitrogen‑rich fertilizers greatly
increases these emissions. Nitrogen is delivered through syn‑
thetic fertilizers, such as urea or anhydrous ammonia, or organic
fertilizers, such as manure. Whatever is not used by the plant
is devoured by microbes in the soil, combining it with oxygen
and releasing N2O into the atmosphere. Only about half of the
nitrogen is taken in by the plant, while the other half is either
tied up by microbes or released into the environment.79 Some
research suggests that the N2O emission rate increases exponen‑
tially with increases in fertilizer rate.80
According to FAO, global nitrogen‑rich fertilizer consumption
has signicantly increased since 1960 and is expected to contin‑
ue to rise through 2050 (Figure 5).
Even more alarming is new data based on research conducted
by the US Department of Energy's (DOE's) Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory that suggests that carbon stored in deeper
soil layers may be more sensitive to warming than previously
believed. Calculations show that by 2100, deep‑soil emissions
could account for as much as 30% of human‑caused annual
emissions.81 While much attention has been on topsoil, it ap‑
pears that the problem could go much deeper.
Figure 5: Global Fertlizer Consumption: Historical and Projected
Source: FAO, World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050, Table 4.15 (2012 Revision).
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 12
Could gene editing turn commodity crops like corn, wheat, and
rice—responsible for a majority of nitrogen fertilizer use—into
nitrogen xers? e gene editing answer may not be in the plant
itself, but rather in the bacteria. is is currently the focus of
some exciting research and investment. One company, Pivot
Bio, found that nitrogen‑xing bacteria existed on corn roots,
but had gone dominant. Last year, the company launched the
rst microbial nitrogen‑xing solution into the US market.
e product, which is essentially a liquid probiotic applied to
the seeds, doesn’t completely replace the need for fertilizer, but
greatly reduces the amount needed.94 Pivot is backed by large
investors, including Bill Gates’s Breakthrough Energy Ventures.
Other companies are following Pivot’s lead. In 2017, biotech
multinational Beyer launched a joint venture with Ginkgo
Bioworks to engineer bacteria that will help to create self‑fertil‑
izing crops.95 Microbials have great potential, but their adoption
will require signicant investment and R&D along with farmer
education.
Indoor Vertical Farming. Indoor vertical farms provide
operators greater control over climate conditions, allowing for
consistent, year‑round harvests. Plants are stacked in towers,
maximizing the yield per square footage of space. In some cases,
yield estimates for vertical farms can be 30 times that of conven‑
tional farming.96
ere are three types of growing systems: hydroponics, where
water serves as the medium—often with the addition of soil‑free
options such as peat moss and coconut husks to provide struc‑
ture; aquaponics, which is similar to hydroponics but with the
addition of sh that provide nutrient‑rich water to the plants;
and aeroponics, where roots are suspended in the air and water
mist and nutrients are applied directly.97 Today, hydroponic sys‑
tems are the least expensive and the most often deployed across
all indoor farming operations.98
A combination of natural and articial light is used to achieve
the perfect level of light needed for growth. Vertical farms are
protected from adverse weather conditions and pests within the
building structure. is allows for farming without harmful pes‑
OPTIONS TO DECARBONIZE
Opportunities to reduce soil N2O emissions lie in the timing,
rate, and placement of nitrogen fertilizers, which can be con‑
trolled in part by best practices. Digital farming can provide
greater precision. What if you could zero out N2O emissions by
avoiding the use of soil and nitrogen fertilizers? In this section,
we take a look at the technologies and best practices that have
the best potential for signicant decarbonization.
Gene Editing of Crops. ere is ongoing research in the
area of gene editing to make crops more resilient to a changing
climate. Perhaps the most successful and widely implemented
is hybrid rice. Discovered by Chinese scientists in the 1970s,
hybrid rice has helped to increase productivity and feed millions
of people around the world. For example, in Nepal, where local
rice yield was between 2.5 and 3.5 metric tons per hectare in
2001, hybrid rice raised this yield to 7.2 tons by 2014.91 Hybrid
rice has helped to feed a growing Chinese population, which
accounts for 21% of the world’s population, using only 7% of
arable land.92
Crop resilience is critical for this sector, which faces signicant
losses in yield longer term with rising temperatures. While gene
editing has in the past focused on resilience and increased yields,
which also help to avoid acre expansion and the emissions that
come with land conversion, there is also an opportunity for crops
to mitigate N2O emissions. For example, scientists are research‑
ing ways to design crops to make their own nitrogen, eliminat‑
ing the need for nitrogen fertilizer.
Legumes such as soybeans and peas have long been revered for
their natural ability to x nitrogen through a symbiotic relation‑
ship with rhizobia bacteria. Fixation is the process in which bac‑
teria turn N2, an abundant gas in the atmosphere, into the more
usable ammonia form, NH3. e bacteria invade the root system
and the plant provides nutrients that support the growth of
nodules. Once matured, the nodules x nitrogen, which is then
supplied to the plant.93 A limited amount of nitrogen fertilizer
may be needed in the early growing period, but once established,
the nodules are able to x most of the plant’s nitrogen needs;
although this depends on the type of legume.
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 13
A number of factors are driving the growth of vertical farming,
including: global urbanization and consumer interest in locally
sourced foods; extreme weather events and soil depletion; and
demand for self‑suciency, particularly in regions that do not
have access to fertile land.103 Yet even with this expected growth,
vertical farming will represent a small portion of overall farming
operations. Globally, vertical farms are expected to grow to 22
million square feet (500 acres) over the next ve years.104 Today,
traditional outdoor farmland covers about 2.3 billion acres
worldwide.105
Several challenges exist that threaten the accelerated adoption of
vertical farms, all tied to cost. One barrier is the large capital ex‑
pense needed to build the vertical farm. As many of these farms
are positioned for urban markets, land and construction costs
within cities can be steep. Protability has been hard to prove
over the years, with many vertical farms going out of business.
Yet investments are being made—more than $500 million has
been raised by the US urban vertical farming industry over the
last couple of years.106 Investment is coming largely from socially
responsible funds looking to benet from the local farm to table
movement and invest in companies that oer sustainable prac‑
tices and clean technologies.107
Another signicant cost is labor. According to one survey, larger
vertical farms (>10,000 ft2) employ 51 workers on average,
which equates to 2.5 workers per acre cultivated.108 In compari‑
son, conventional farms in the US employ less than 1 worker per
acre farmed.109 Beanstalk Farms in Virginia, a UVA iLab alumni,
is using machinery to automate more mundane tasks, reducing
labor costs while oering the additional benets of consistent
high quality and safe produce due to less handling of the crops
throughout the growing cycle.
Indoor vertical farms have promise, but face signicant cost bar‑
riers that might be resolved with technologies that can automate
more mundane operations. Growth will likely be concentrated in
urban centers, providing a more sustainable substitute farming
source for those populations, avoiding further farmland expan‑
sion, and substituting a small portion of traditional farming.
ticides. Water consumption is greatly reduced—some estimate
as much as 95%99 compared to conventional outdoor farms—as
a result of capturing the moisture transpired by the plants and
returning it to the system.
e crops most suitable for vertical farming are quick to turn—
that is, they have a short time period between seed to maturity
and market. ese include lettuces, mustard and collard greens,
basil, and mint.100 Growers report that lettuces and microgreens
oer the highest prot margins—as much as 40%—compared to
other indoor‑grown edible crops.101
One important advantage of indoor farming is food safety.
Growers are able to control every input into the growing process,
including ltering the water used to irrigate the plants, which
is often a source of E. coli breakouts across conventional lettuce
farming.
Given their exible indoor design, many vertical farms are being
built in urban areas, which brings food closer to consumers, re‑
ducing transportation costs and associated CO2 emissions from
fossil‑fueled transport. While there are some concerns around
increased electricity use—energy is the largest operating cost
with the lighting system, representing as much as 70% of the
total102—growers are turning to more ecient LEDs to reduce
lighting loads. e electrication of farming in general provides
an opportunity for zero‑carbon energy sources, like renewables,
to fully decarbonize vertical farming.
INDOOR VERTICAL FARMS USE
30x
MORE
PRODUCE
95%
LESS
WATER
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 14
in the soil. Switching from a monoculture to polyculture
rotation, or the planting of many dierent crops at the
same time, can also increase carbon storage.112
Nutrient Management. Eective fertilizer application
follows what’s known in the industry as the 4 Rs: right
source, right rate, right time, and right place. Fertiliz‑
er formulations can have a signicant impact on N2O
emissions. One example is corn‑soybean rotations, where
emissions can be between two and four times higher using
anhydrous ammonia than urea ammonium nitrate.113
Additives can also reduce N2O emissions—nitrication
inhibitors can delay microbes’ transformation of ammo‑
nium to nitrate closer to the time that plants are able to
use it.114 Slow‑release formulations like polymer coatings
might also reduce emissions.115 More eld studies are
needed to measure the direct benets of these approach‑
es on reducing N2O emissions. Determining the rate in
which the fertilizer is applied so that it meets the needs of
the plant and reducing the amount of available nitrogen
in the soil will reduce N2O emissions. Timing fertilizer
application to the needs of the plant throughout the grow‑
ing cycle will impact emissions. For example, applying it a
few weeks after—instead of during or prior to—planting
increases the likelihood of the nitrogen being picked up by
the crop.116 Finally, application close to the plant roots can
ensure uptake.
Smart/Precision Farming. Introduced in the early 1800s,
the Farmers’ Almanac was a farmer’s best source of predictive
weather data. Today, the almanac is more novelty than guide, as
farmers have access to more precise, regional short‑term fore‑
casts and predictive modeling tools. Climate‑smart agriculture
will rely on the farmer’s ability to more precisely manage the
health of crops with the help of data, in addition to monitoring
weather conditions. By more precisely monitoring and address‑
ing plant and soil health, farmers are able to reduce the amount
of inputs needed to produce food. e big‑data opportunity is
opening up the door to technology companies that are investing
in agriculture‑specic digital solutions.
However, extending the technology to crops like corn and wheat
will be a bigger challenge and is not currently the goal of market
entrants.
To decarbonize global agriculture, we will also need widespread
adoption of best practices and technologies, and signicant
advances in plant science, to drive down emissions created by
conventional farming.
Best Practices. Regenerative agriculture is a holistic approach
to farming, incorporating best practices that seek to enrich soils,
improve watersheds, increase biodiversity, and support local
farming communities. Increasing carbon stored in soils has
the added benet of higher yields and many best practices cost
little for the farmer to implement.110 For example, using cover
crops between successive food crops can help to sequester CO2
otherwise lost when elds are left bare. Also, managing the nu‑
trients put into the soil, both in timing and substance, can have
a signicant impact on soil emissions. Of course, the eective‑
ness of these practices are highly dependent on soil and climatic
conditions, which will vary based on region.
Conservation Tillage. No‑till or reduced‑till practic‑
es leave residue from last year’s crop on top of the soil
instead of being plowed under by tractors. Traditionally
farmers plowed elds for weed control and to prepare soils
for the next planting. Disrupting the soil releases carbon
into the atmosphere. Advancements in weed control and
planting equipment have provided farmers the opportu‑
nity to use no‑till and reduced‑till approaches, conserving
topsoil, improving soil health, and reducing carbon emis‑
sions in the process.111 However, emission reductions won’t
be realized unless these practices are paired with organic
farming.
Cover Crops and Crop Rotation. Cover crops—those
planted temporarily between main cash crop plantings—
can extract excess nitrogen not used by the previous plants
and help to sequester carbon. Retaining cover crop residue
on elds can further increase the amount of carbon stored
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 15
Data is critical to climate‑smart farming, but the volume of this
data can be overwhelming to the farmer. Articial intelligence
(AI) can take large datasets and quickly perform analyses, sug‑
gesting a course of action based on predictive modeling that the
farmer can then evaluate in real time. Based on industry discus‑
sions, AI is not quite ready for agriculture primarily because of
the lack of consistency and comparability across data platforms.
Managing and compiling many dierent types of data inputs in
order to make farm‑level decisions adds to the complexity. Col‑
laboration between companies racing to provide data solutions,
and even the creation of open‑source software, will facilitate
adoption of AI tools.
e success or failure of these digital solutions will depend rst
and foremost on whether they are easy to implement and under‑
stand, and whether they meet farmers’ basic needs.
Sensors put directly in the soil can be eective at measuring
soil health, informing the farmer of variability and problems.
e sensors provide a soil map, which allows farmers to manage
smaller tracts and pinpoint concerns. Once a problem is iden‑
tied, soil samples are sent to a laboratory for more in‑depth
testing. However, there are some real‑time solutions being intro‑
duced to the market by companies like AgroCares, which oers
a handheld scanner that monitors soil fertility, providing data on
important nutrients such as pH, nitrogen, and phosphorous.117
Sensors can also monitor soil moisture, which allows the farmer
to more eciently irrigate dierent parts of the eld depending
on need. Monitoring and micromanaging soil nutrients and
moisture across the eld will result in a more productive and
sustainable operation.
Drones are also being deployed to monitor crops and provide
insight into plant and soil health, readiness for harvest, potential
diseases, and pest infestations in real time. Farmers are able to
more quickly and accurately assess every inch of their elds and
stay ahead of problems that may impact production. In addition
to data collection, some drones are equipped with the ability to
spray crops. Able to scan the ground in ight, the drones hover
at an ideal height, modulating spray as needed and avoiding
drift, which results in less water and fertilizer/herbicides being
used and faster spray times.118 ere is also talk in the industry of
drones being able to drop seeds. But there are some challenges
with drone deployment. Drones that come equipped with the
image sensors and software needed for agriculture operations
can cost tens of thousands of dollars, although one would expect
that cost to decline with widespread adoption. FAA and local
laws must also be met to operate a drone.119
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 16
1. INCREASE CONSUMER DEMAND FOR SUS-
TAINABLE ALTERNATIVES
In this industry, the consumer drives change. ere is a growing
interest within more developed, industrialized food markets
in local production and greater transparency into how food is
sourced. Consumers are increasingly interested in the health of
food: specically, how it’s managed and produced. is, in turn,
is inuencing how companies are farming soil and livestock. Ac‑
cording to the National Restaurant Association’s “What’s Hot
in 2019” survey of 650 chefs across the United States, top food
trends for this year include: zero‑waste cooking, locally sourced
ingredients, and veggie‑centric/vegetable‑forward cuisine.122
e rise in consumer concerns related to animal welfare and the
use of antibiotics has caused a seismic shift by big companies
away from broader herd management and treatment toward
more predictive medicine on an individual animal basis, with the
help of AI and access to real‑time data. Consumer interest has
driven companies like Purdue to move toward 100% antibiot‑
ic‑free production, and it will continue to push major brands to
explore more sustainable alternatives to mainstream products.
FOR DECARBONIZATION TO HAPPEN in the agriculture indus‑
try, levers need to be pulled throughout the entire food chain:
production, distribution, and consumption. ere is no sil‑
ver‑bullet technology, and the answer will likely be a mix of best
practices, dietary shifts, and smart farming. It will also likely be
regional, with dierent approaches identied based on country,
farm size, and commodity.
e low‑hanging fruit is education, yet this is no small task
given how diuse the agriculture marketplace is. According
to FAO, 90% of farms around the world are managed by one
person or a family, and these farms produce 80% of agricultural
output.120 Reaching these farmers will be critical to decarbon‑
izing the industry. Agriculture extension organizations take
information gained from science and research out to rural areas
to educate farmers on the latest best practices and technology
opportunities. ese extensions are in place in both developed
and developing countries, but there is often distrust in the infor‑
mation once it reaches the small farmer, particularly in develop‑
ing countries. Organizations like FAO and WRI are working to
put systems in place to support small farmers in these countries
and build trust in science. e spread of mobile phones into rural
areas is assisting with the dissemination of information to these
farmers. According to FAO, mobile subscribers in low‑ and
middle‑income countries will reach 90% adoption by 2020.121
Private‑sector initiatives, like that being spearheaded by the
Gates Foundation, are also working to educate small farmers
in developing countries. Major food companies are working in
their own supply chains to educate their suppliers.
Yet to meet our 2060 goal, education must be coupled with
adoption of new technologies and change in consumer demand.
What are some of the other levers that can be pulled to acceler‑
ate this shift?
LEVERS FOR DECARBONIZATION
TOP FOOD TRENDS IN 2019
ZERO-WASTE COOKING HYPER-LOCAL
VEGGIECENTRIC / VEGETABLE
FORWARD CUISINE
#3#6
#8
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 17
Consumer demand for sustainably sourced wood products can
help to reduce deforestation and encourage growth of new
forests and carbon sinks. International labeling programs such
as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Program for
Endorsement of Forest Certication (PEFC) certify products
that are produced from responsibly managed forests. ese
third‑party organizations oer searchable databases of products
and companies, and major retailers like e Home Depot carry
certied products.
2. REDUCE FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
According to FAO, one‑third of the food produced annually for
human consumption is lost or wasted,126 which equates to 1.3
billion tons of food.127 FAO estimates that food waste represents
8% of global GHG emissions.128 If food waste were a country, it
would be the third‑largest emitter.129
Where this loss or waste happens along the supply chain de‑
pends on global region. In developing countries, loss happens
at the harvesting, storage, and cooling stages due to nancial,
managerial, and technical barriers.130 Some estimates suggest
that only 10% of perishable food is refrigerated.131 Cold chain
(i.e., refrigerated supply chain) storage and transportation could
greatly reduce food waste in developing countries. One example
provided in the book Food Foolish is India, which represents 28%
of banana production, but exports less than 1% due to an incom‑
plete cold chain system.132 Smaller‑scale, low‑cost technologies
that can be deployed in rural areas and policies that help to
support their adoption could reduce carbon emissions otherwise
attributed to overproduction of food to account for losses.
In developed countries, where infrastructure is in place to sup‑
port the supply chain, waste occurs at the retail and consumer
stages. In the United States, ReFED estimates that 52 million
tons of food produced each year is sent to landlls. A lot of
attention has been paid to eorts to save “ugly” food, attract‑
ing new ventures that buy imperfect fruits and vegetables from
farmers and distribute directly to consumers. Yet, 85% of the
waste actually happens at these later stages.133
In the United States, we have seen a sizeable shift away from
dairy consumption to alternatives such as soy, almond, and co‑
conut, due largely to consumer belief that plant‑based products
are healthier and better for the environment.123 Overall milk
consumption declined by 22% from 2000 to 2016, and alter‑
native milks (plant‑based) are predicted to represent 40% of
US milk sales by 2021.124 However, as mentioned earlier in this
report, there will be a signicant increase in milk consumption
in developing countries that could more than balance out any
declines seen in more developed countries.
Plant‑based burgers have been available in stores for years, but
they have been largely viewed as strictly a vegan alternative. En‑
vironmentally conscious exitarians, or consumers that largely
eat a vegetarian diet but consume meat occasionally, are looking
for alternatives, but don’t want to give up taste. Companies like
Impossible Foods are introducing plant‑based alternatives that
serve as substitutes for meat lovers, competing with conventional
beef patties on texture and taste. ese alternatives are being
picked up by national restaurant chains, which are able to more
quickly reach customers across the country. After nearly a month
of piloting an Impossible Whopper in St. Louis, Burger King
already has plans to expand pilots to other parts of the country
based on overwhelmingly positive consumer response and will
make the product available to all stores nationwide by the end of
the year.125 If successful, other chain restaurants will likely follow
its lead.
“Clean meat” will benet from the path paved by the plant‑
based burger movement, changing consumer perception about
the ingredients of a burger. However, there is still the challenge
of consumer messaging and education. Being transparent about
process, ingredients, and the benets of clean meat will help to
address concerns.
Ultimately, taste will drive greater acceptance of alternative pro‑
teins. If producers can get the balance of taste and price right
then we should see greater uptake in more developed markets.
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 18
As with many environmental issues, consumers understand the
food waste problem, but do not see themselves as part of the
solution. According to FAO, North America is home to the
most wasteful consumers on a per capita scale.137 Interestingly,
consumer education was also identied by ReFED as the top
action with the most nancial benets to society, or economic
value per ton. e challenge lies in the fact that food is rela‑
tively cheap in the United States and that behavior is hard to
change unless the change is emotionally or nancially motivated.
National and local consumer education campaigns that engage
public and private industry stakeholders with messaging that
touches on those issues most important to the average Ameri‑
can, including saving money, are critical.138
3. INCREASE PUBLIC-SECTOR INVESTMENT
AND INCENTIVES
For decades, US farmers have relied on the Farm Bill to support
them through tough growing seasons and to help stimulate
demand for domestic crops. e bill was rst drafted in 1933,
at the time of the Great Depression, to address farmer needs
and widespread poverty in the United States.139 Farmers needed
to produce to make a living while demand for their goods was
declining. e federal government paid farmers to slow produc‑
tions and bought surplus goods to help feed hungry people.
Every ve years, the Farm Bill is reviewed by the federal govern‑
ment to ensure it adequately addresses the needs of farmers and
Americans. Today, the majority of bill spending goes to nutri‑
ReFED evaluated 27 waste reduction actions that oer the po‑
tential to reduce 18 million tons of GHG emissions annually in
the United States.134 e three actions identied as the biggest
contributors to this reduction if implemented include: central‑
ized composting, waste tracking and analytics, and consumer
education campaigns.135
Composting turns organic waste into humus, which can then
be used to support healthy and fertile soil. Central composting
facilities could be regionally located, working with multiple
smaller community operations and providing the benet of
economies of scale, reducing the cost of the organic fertilizer
that is then sold to the community. However, there are challeng‑
es. e capital costs for the facility and equipment can be pro‑
hibitive, low‑cost synthetic fertilizers continue to benet from
cheap oil and industrial production, and food wastes need other
carbon‑rich sources to balance the nitrogen‑rich compost.
Restaurants and retailers largely aren’t aware of the amount of
waste they are generating on‑site. Auditing waste streams is the
rst step to identifying reduction opportunities. Solutions may
include adjusting inventories, tracking sell‑by dates, donating to
food banks or livestock farms, and composting. All of these solu‑
tions carry their own carbon‑reduction potential. Using software
solutions to track food waste can be daunting and will require
time and resources to implement.136
FOOD WASTE IN DEVELOPING AND DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
30%1.8
LOST OR
WASTED
BILLION
TONS
=TRANSPORT
SOURCES OF FOOD LOSS AND WASTE
RETAIL/CONSUMER
8%
OF GHGs
in developed countries
in developing countries
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 19
and Europe, in an eort to get access to research expertise and
more in‑depth understanding of ecient production practices.151
One example is the 2013 acquisition of Smitheld Foods in the
United States by the WH Group. Private‑sector R&D invest‑
ment is also increasing in China, from 3% in 1995 to 16% in
2006 of total country expenditures on agriculture.152
Conservation programs are also being implemented in other
parts of the world. e EU requires member states to allocate
30% of income support to greening activities, providing direct
payment to farmers that adopt best practices that preserve
natural resources.153 More recently, the EU Commissioner an‑
nounced the pursuit of the Farm Carbon Forest Initiative, which
would reward farmers and forest managers for practices that
sequestered carbon.
Government policy can serve as a barrier to new technolo‑
gies and practices. For example, plant gene editing requires no
additional regulatory approvals if scientists stay within breed. It’s
a dierent story for livestock, which is regulated like a pharma‑
ceutical drug. While countries like Brazil and Argentina allow
gene editing of animals within the same genetic code, similar
to plants, the EU and United States treat gene editing like a
tion, namely the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP).140 Other areas addressed include commodity crop reve‑
nue insurance, international trade support, guaranteed credit and
loans, rural development, and natural disaster crop insurance.141
e most recent Farm Bill was signed into law on December
20, 2018. ere are several parts of the bill that address soil and
forest conservation, and more climate‑friendly farming practices
in general. For example, incentives are provided for best prac‑
tices such as cover crops, crop rotation, and advanced grazing
management, as well as comprehensive conservation planning.142
ere are also new research priorities around soil health and
authorization of policies that support adapted seed varieties to
navigate the eects of climate change.143
While the inclusion of conservation‑focused incentives in the
Farm Bill is promising, the fact is that US public funding for
agriculture R&D has trended downward since 1970. Fortunately,
private funding seems to be picking up where public invest‑
ment has left o. According to USDA, public‑sector funding
of agriculture R&D began declining in 2003, and for the rst
time, private‑sector investments surpassed those from govern‑
ment sources.144 By 2013, federal and state government funding
represented 23% of total US agriculture R&D investments,
while the private sector and other nongovernmental sources
(e.g., foundations and farmer organizations) represented 76%.145
USDA’s budget (where most of the federal government dollars
are allocated) had fallen from $6 billion in 2003 to $3 billion.146
While the FY2019 appropriation increased this slightly to $3.4
billion, the US White House Administration has proposed a cut
in funding for FY2020 to $2.8 billion.147
Elsewhere in the world, public funding for agriculture R&D
is increasing, led by China (Figure 6).148 Chinese government
investment in R&D increased almost eightfold between 1990
and 2013.149 China is also investing in the modernization of Af‑
rica’s agriculture industry, with President Xi pledging in 2016 to
provide funding support to those eorts.150 Chinese companies
are expanding into new global markets through acquisitions of
companies in more developed markets, such as the United States
Figure 6: Agriculture Public Sector Funding Across Key Global Players
Source: USDA, https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber‑waves/2016/november/
us‑agricultural‑rd‑in‑an‑era‑of‑falling‑public‑funding/
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 20
ing or disclosing supply chain emissions. According to Ceres, a
non‑prot organization that works to build the business case for
sustainability, of the 50 top food and beverage companies that
sell consumer goods in the United States and Canada, only 15
are reporting emissions from upstream agriculture.154 For those
companies, Scope 3 emissions accounted for a surprising 86% of
total company‑reported emissions.155
Emission accounting protocols and tools are critical to company
eorts to track GHGs and identify opportunities for reduction
throughout the supply chain. Global organizations like Ceres
are developing resources such as standards, methodologies, and
calculators156 for evaluating emissions from upstream agriculture
operations and land‑use change activities. Standardizing meth‑
odologies and protocols can help suppliers to consistently report
performance across multiple customers.
Even when emission sources can be identied and measured,
inuencing multiple suppliers and distributors—particularly
in other countries, each with their own regulatory require‑
ments—can be challenging. To give a sense of the size of such a
challenge, last year, Unilever mapped and released information
on the 1,600 mills and 100 reneries that provide palm oil to
their suppliers, most of which are located in Southeast Asia and
South America.157 e increasing popularity of palm oil—almost
50% of packaged products for sale at supermarkets use it158—is
blamed for deforestation increases in countries with high species
diversity and dense forests. To work with these international
governments to achieve meaningful action requires in‑country
expertise and established relationships.
Some corporations are partnering with ag‑science companies
that have farmer networks already established to source sus‑
tainably grown inputs. Earlier this year, Anheuser‑Busch and
Indigo Agriculture announced a partnership to supply the beer
company with 2.2 million bushels of Indigo RiceTM. According
to Indigo, growers contracting with Indigo to produce rice for
Anheuser‑Busch will reduce water and nitrogen used by 10%,
which will result in a 10% reduction in GHG emissions.159
GMO, requiring additional approvals. Yet the very denition of
gene editing is dierent than that of a GMO, with the former
referring to edits made within the same genome and the latter
dened as introducing foreign DNA into the sequence. Even
within the seemingly more supportive plant gene editing world,
there are dierences in regulations depending on country. For
example, the genetically edited hybrid Golden Rice was recently
approved for commercial sale in the United States, but although
it was created and patented in China, cannot be sold in country
due to stricter regulations. Regulations for gene editing activities
are crucial to ensuring food safety, but movement toward inter‑
nationally recognized standards that protect public health while
allowing for innovation and scientic advances could accelerate
the shift to more climate‑friendly and resilient food sources.
4. LEVERAGE THE SUPPLY CHAIN
For many food companies, the majority of carbon emissions
comes from their supply chains, otherwise known as Scope 3
emissions. Inuencing and tracking those emissions can prove
dicult for even the biggest brands accustomed to wielding
their purchasing power. ese companies are in the best position
to inuence change in these channels, but many are not measur‑
86%
OF TOTAL
REPORTED
EMISSIONS
ONLY 15
UPSTREAM AGRICULTURE
According to Ceres, of the
50 TOP FOOD AND BEVERAGE COMPANIES that sell
consumer goods in the United States and Canada,
For those companies,
SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS
ACCOUNTED FOR
ARE REPORTING
EMISSIONS FROM
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 21
cover crops, and alley cropping (the planting of trees alongside
rows of crops).165 Many of these pathways would require low
cost to implement.
However, forests, once considered the biggest carbon sink op‑
portunity and hope for carbon balance, could actually contribute
to climate change if atmospheric warming continues. One study
published by Harvard suggests that at some point, forests may
emit more carbon than they sequester. Scientists warmed forest
soils over the span of 20 years and measured not just one pulse
of CO2, but subsequent releases that suggested an evolution of
the microbes exposed to the warming temperatures, accelerating
the rate of emissions.166 Another study suggests that the world’s
tropical forests are actually acting as a net source due less to
deforestation and more to reductions in carbon density within
standing forests from degradation or disturbance—scientists
calculated almost 70% of losses attributed to existing forests.167
Our best hope at mitigating GHG emissions might actually be
through growth of new forests. A study released by the Bir‑
mingham Institute of Forest Research suggests that younger
forests may better sequester carbon than old‑growth forests like
tropical rainforests. Researchers found that more than half of
the global carbon sink represented by forests is found in middle‑
and high‑latitude forests less than 140 years old. One theory is
that reforested land is open and sunny, allowing newly planted
fast‑growing species to sequester carbon and incorporate it into
their biomass quickly, while old‑growth trees must compete for
resources with neighboring trees in close proximity.168
Another hopeful carbon sequester is emerging: hemp. An
inherently resilient and sustainable crop, hemp is low main‑
tenance—requiring less water, pesticides, and fertilizer than
corn—and oers a list of uses from livestock feed to textiles.
Hemp grows vigorously, can be grown in elds otherwise retired
from farming, and can also be used as a cover crop with the
benet of replenishing soils. According to some estimates, hemp
can sequester 1.63 tons of CO2 per ton grown.169 Banned in
the 1950s due to concerns around marijuana, many states have
introduced new legislation that supports hemp cultivation. More
ese company‑led commitments are encouraging, but to shift
supply chains, there is strength in numbers. Multibrand part‑
nerships with nonprots and other stakeholders have proven
eective at inuencing change within a given input supply chain.
Palm oil serves as a good example, where the nonprot Round‑
table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), brought together pro‑
ducers, consumer goods companies, retailers, traders, and NGOs
to develop internationally recognized standards for sustainable
palm oil. RSPO member companies also commit to implement‑
ing the standards. Some of these companies are sourcing 100%
sustainable palm oil, including: Walmart, Unilever, McDon‑
ald’s, General Mills, Hershey, General Mills, Mars, and Kraft
Heinz.160 According to RSPO, 19% of the palm oil produced
globally has been RSPO‑certied.161
Another example of multistakeholder inuence is the part‑
nership between nonprots Carbon Undergraound and Green
America and corporate advocates, Ben and Jerry's, DanoneWave,
Annie’s, and Megafood to develop a global standard for food
grown from regenerative farming.162 e Soil Carbon Initiative,
developed with the help of 150 farmers, scientists, and other
stakeholders, is seeking public comments prior to an end‑of‑the‑
year launch of the standards.163
Multistakeholder partnerships like these can help to accelerate
the creation and adoption of the global standards needed to
more quickly decarbonize food supply chains.
5. INCREASE CARBON SINKS
Carbon sequestration currently osets about 20% of global
agriculture emissions. Increasing our carbon sinks while work‑
ing to mitigate agriculture emissions could lead to a signicant
reduction in our global carbon footprint. e good news is that
options are already at our disposal, many of which are being
implemented in developed countries. e Nature Conservancy
recently released a study that claims that nature‑based solutions
are readily available and can get us a third of the way to Paris
Agreement targets by 2030, with a tenth of that attributed to US
action.164 Mitigation pathways range from reforestation, forest
management, and re management to grazing optimization,
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 22
2012.176 e rst carbon credits for grasslands sold last year, also
to Microsoft.177
Although many countries have developed carbon‑trading
schemes, agriculture is not often listed as a participating indus‑
try. is is an area of great promise and opportunity, yet much
work needs to be done to establish protocols and build the
necessary infrastructure to support such a program.
recently, the 2018 Farm Bill ocially lifted the ban on hemp.
e US hemp market has already seen signicant growth—in
2016, Americans bought $600 million in products, and by 2018,
this increased to $1 billion—and with the federal ban lifted,
growth is expected to continue to climb; one estimate suggests
$2.6 billion by 2022.170
We are in the early stages of researching and truly understand‑
ing the benets of land‑use change and the long‑term eects of
warming on these sinks. e carbon sequestered will be a nite
amount, and any work to expand carbon sinks must be coupled
with continued declines in deforestation and reductions in emis‑
sions from agriculture operations.
6. CREATE A MARKET FOR CARBON
For agriculture, there is value in carbon sequestration in terms of
soil productivity, but in addition to higher yields, what if farmers
were also paid for the carbon? e idea of “carbon farming” is
getting some attention, particularly in cap and trade markets.
In 2015, the California Air Resources Board approved the
inclusion of rice farmers in the state‑wide cap and trade market,
allowing for the generation and sale of carbon osets based on a
protocol of land‑management best practices.171
Before any trading could begin, the carbon‑reduction method‑
ology had to be approved by the American Carbon Registry—a
nonprot that sets standards for carbon osets—and the State
of California. For rice, best practices around water management
and drainage can result in reduced methane emissions.172 In
2017, Microsoft purchased the rst‑ever carbon credits from US
rice farmers.173
Additional protocols are being developed, led by non‑prots like
the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). More recently, the
American Carbon Registry approved a grassland management
protocol.174 New research suggests that grasslands may be better
carbon sinks than forests, able to retain carbon even during
wildre events.175 Yet, 1.6 million acres of grasslands aged 20
years or older were converted to croplands between 2008 and
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 23
THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR IS A CRITICAL and complex one
when it comes to decarbonization by 2060. At roughly a quarter
of all global greenhouse emissions, the sector must see signi‑
cant reductions in order to achieve the Paris targets. is will not
be easy—demand for food will only increase as the worldwide
population and demand for protein‑rich foods by developing
countries increase.
Unlike the transportation and energy sectors, there are no obvi‑
ous emerging technologies, such as electric vehicles and renew‑
able energy, that seem poised to radically disrupt the status quo.
Rather, a sustainable transformation will likely require a com‑
bination of the diusion of best practices, changes in consumer
preferences, and the emergence of a portfolio of novel solutions
that leverage technology to lower the agricultural carbon foot‑
print. All of this will have to happen in a global industry made
up of millions of enterprises, from large multinationals to small
family farmers.
A viable path to 2060 seems unlikely, yet no other sector is
as critical to human survival than agriculture. Decarboniza‑
tion will likely necessitate a worldwide eort led by individual
nation‑states to create signicant incentives and programs to
dramatically change agricultural practices at the local level.
Such a wholesale change seems daunting and unrealistic within
this time frame. Despite the exciting eorts in the biotech and
digital agtech segments, the prospects for a technological silver
bullet seem very dim indeed.
We choose optimism, however. Agriculture is one of the few
sectors with a high potential to serve as a carbon sink. Improved
land‑management practices and the conversion of lands to
forests and other carbon sinks could greatly oset agricultural
emissions. Only if we pursue all the levers available to us can we
achieve decarbonization by 2060.
CONTRIBUTORS
Rebecca Du
Senior Research Associate
Batten Institute for Entrepreneurship and Innovation
UVA Darden School of Business
dur@darden.virginia.edu
Michael J. Lenox
Professor of Business
UVA Darden School of Business
lenoxm@darden.virginia.edu
Recommendations and opinions stated in this report
represent those of the authors and not the University
of Virginia Darden School of Business or the Batten
Institute for Entrepreneurship and Innovation.
AGRICULTURE DECARBONIZATION NOT LIKELY BY 2060
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 24
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
EPA’s overall mission is to protect human health and the
environment. Each year, EPA publishes the Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks that estimates total GHG
emissions and removals associated with human activities, includ‑
ing major industry sectors like agriculture. is report is a col‑
laboration across several US federal agencies, including USDA,
and compiled by EPA to comply with commitments made under
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC).
For more information: www.epa.gov
WORLD AGRI-TECH AND ANIMAL AGTECH INNOVATION
SUMMIT PROGRAMS, MARCH 18–20, 2019
World Agri‑Tech and Animal Agtech Innovation Summits
bring together 1000+ companies, investors, start‑ups, and other
industry experts twice a year who are dedicated to advancing
sustainable agriculture.
For more information: https://worldagritechusa.com
KEY INDUSTRY RESOURCES
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO) OF THE
UNITED NATIONS
FAO is an agency of the United Nations that leads a number of
initiatives aimed at reducing worldwide hunger, malnutrition,
and poverty. As part of its strategic priorities, FAO is working
with countries to mitigate climate change and strengthen the
resilience of agriculture systems around the world.
For more information: http://www.fao.org/climate-change/en
UN INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
(IPCC)
IPCC is a body of the United Nations charged with assessing
the scientic basis of climate change, identifying its impacts and
future risks, and presenting mitigation and adaptation options.
IPCC is best known for its synthesis reports on climate change.
e most recent fth assessment report (AR5), published in
2014, represents the most extensively researched and reviewed
report released to date and serves as the basis for climate policy‑
making around the world.
For more information: https://www.ipcc.ch
US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
USDA oversees 29 government agencies managing programs
in support of the following mission areas: farm production and
conservation; food, nutrition, and consumer services; food safety;
marketing and regulatory programs; natural resources and envi‑
ronment; research, education, and economics; rural development;
and trade and foreign agricultural aairs.
For more information: www.usda.gov
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 25
15 Joshua Berlinger, “Queensland Floods: 500,000 Cattle Survived Years‑Long Drought
Only to Die in the Rain”, CNN, February 13, 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/13/
australia/cattle‑crisis‑australia‑intl/index.html.
16 Chuang Zhao et al, “Temperature Increase Reduces Global Yields of Major Crops in
Four Independent Estimates” Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unit‑
ed States of America, July 10, 2017, https://www.pnas.org/content/114/35/9326#F2.
17 Ibid.
18 F.N. Tubiello, M. Salvatore, R.D. Cóndor Golec, A. Ferrara, S. Rossi, R. Biancalani, S.
Federici, H. Jacobs, A. Flammini, “Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by
Sources and Removals by Sinks”, FAO, p. 19 March 2014, http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/
i3671e/i3671e.pdf.
19 FAOs Work on Climate Change 2017.
20 Ibid.
21 FAO, Animal Production, FAOs Role in Animal Production, http://www.fao.org/ani‑
mal‑production/en/ (accessed March 2019).
22 Jonathan Corum, “A Century of Meat,” e New York Times, March 15, 2011, https://
archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/03/15/science/15food_graphic.
html?scp=4&sq=meat&st=cse
23 Richard Waite, “2018 Will See High Meat Consumption in the U.S., but the American
Diet is Shifting”, WRI Blog, January 24, 2018, https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/01/2018‑
will‑see‑high‑meat‑consumption‑us‑american‑diet‑shifting.
24 Ibid.
25 FAO, Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM), Emissions by
Commodity and Emission Intensities, http://www.fao.org/gleam/results/en/ (accessed
March 2019).
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Nitrication is the oxidation of ammonia or ammonium to nitrate. Denitrication
reduces NO3 to molecular nitrogen NO2 under anaerobic conditions.
31 Ibid.
ENDNOTES
1 Climate Interactive and MIT Sloan carbon reduction scenario tool, http://www.climate
interactive.org (accessed Oct. 2018).
2 US EPA Global Greenhouse Emissions Data, Global Emissions by Sector, https://www.
epa.gov/ghgemissions/global‑greenhouse‑gas‑emissions‑data (accessed March 2019).
3 We separate transportation and energy from the agriculture industry. See previous Batten
Path to 2060 reports for these other sectors: https://www.darden.virginia.edu/innovation‑
climate/research/.
4 US EPA, Global Greenhouse Emissions Data, Global Emissions by Gas https://www.epa.
gov/ghgemissions/global‑greenhouse‑gas‑emissions‑data (accessed March 2019).
5 Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Climate Basics: Energy/Emissions Data, Glob‑
al Emissions, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Major Economies 1990–2020,” https://www.
c2es.org/content/international‑emissions/ (accessed Oct. 2018).
6 Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Global Warming Potential Values, https://www.ghgprotocol.
org/sites/default/les/ghgp/Global‑Warming‑Potential‑Values%20%28Feb%2016%20
2016%29_1.pdf (accessed April 2019).
7 US EPA, Global Greenhouse Emissions Data, Global Emissions by Gas.
8 United Nations, World Population Prospects, Key Findings and Advance Tables, 2017,
https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/les/wpp2017_keyndings.pdf.
9 Ibid.
10 FAOs Work on Climate Change, UN Climate Change Conference 2017, http://www.fao.
org/3/a‑i8037e.pdf.
11 OECD/FAO, “OECD‑FAO Agricultural Outlook 2018‑2027, ” Chapter 1: Overview,
p. 22, 2018, http://www.fao.org/docrep/i9166e/i9166e_Chapter1.pdf.
12 P. Smith, D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F.
O’Mara, C. Rice, B. Scholes, O. Sirotenko, 2007: Agriculture. In Climate Change 2007:
Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
IPCC [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge Uni‑
versity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, https://www.ipcc.ch/
site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4‑wg3‑chapter8‑1.pdf.
13 Ibid.
14 USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service, “Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade,”
October 11, 2018, https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/
73666448x?locale=en.
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 26
50 US EPA, AgSTAR Data and Trends, https://www.epa.gov/agstar/agstar‑data‑and‑trends
(accessed April 2019).
51 Alan Yu, “Waste Not, Want Not: Why Aren’t More Farms Putting Poop To Good Use?”,
NPR, April 23, 2017, https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/04/23/524878531/waste‑
not‑want‑not‑why‑arent‑more‑farms‑putting‑poop‑to‑good‑use.
52 Michael Martz, “What a gas! Dominion, Smitheld team to turn methane from hog
waste into fuel for homes and businesses”, Richmond Times‑Dispatch, November 27, 2018,
https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government‑politics/general‑assembly/what‑a‑
gas‑dominion‑smitheld‑team‑to‑turn‑methane‑from/article_1a9e6299‑5f03‑5a09‑b79d‑
01969c7b8a05.html.
53 Judith Lewis Menit, “How Eating Seaweed Can Help Cows to Belch Less Methane”,
Yale Environment 360, July 2, 2018, https://e360.yale.edu/features/how‑eating‑seaweed‑
can‑help‑cows‑to‑belch‑less‑methane.
54 Ibid.
55 Beaozor Laboratories website: https://www.bezoarlaboratories.com/company.
56 in Lei Win, “Fighting global warming, one cow belch at a time”, Reuters, July 19, 2018,
https://www.reuters.com/article/us‑global‑livestock‑emissions/ghting‑global‑warming‑
one‑cow‑belch‑at‑a‑time‑idUSKBN1K91CU.
57 Ibid.
58 USDA, “USDA and NIH Funded International Science Consortium Publishes Analysis
of Domestic Cattle Genome Sequence: Research Will Lead to Better Understanding of
Genetic Basis of Disease”, National Institute for Food and Agriculture, Press Release, April
23, 2009, https://nifa.usda.gov/press‑release/usda‑and‑nih‑funded‑international‑science‑
consortium‑publishes‑analysis‑domestic.
59 Scottish Environment, Food and Agriculture Research Institutes (SEFARI), Breeding to
Reduce Methane Emissions from Beef Cattle, https://sefari.scot/research/breeding‑to‑
reduce‑methane‑emissions‑from‑beef‑cattle (accessed May 2019).
60 Ellen Airheart, “Canada is Using Genetics to Make Cows Less Gassy”, WIRED, June 9,
2017, https://www.wired.com/story/canada‑is‑using‑genetics‑to‑make‑cows‑less‑gassy/.
61 Ibid.
62 PETA, “Yes, is is Actual Meat but no Animal Died for It ”, March 30, 2017, https://
www.peta.org/living/food/memphis‑meats‑debuts‑lab‑grown‑chicken‑clean‑meat/.
63 Emily Byrd, “Clean Meat’s Path to your Dinner Plate”, Good Foods Institute, Dec. 7,
2016, https://www.g.org/clean‑meats‑path‑to‑commercialization.
64 Jo Anderson and Chris Bryant, “Messages to Overcome Naturalness Concerns in Clean
Meat Acceptance: Primary Findings”, Faunalytics, July 2018, https://faunalytics.org/
wp‑content/uploads/2018/11/Clean‑Meat‑Acceptance‑Primary‑Findings.pdf.
32 Horacio A.Aguirre‑Villegas and Rebecca A. Larson, “Evaluating Greenhouse Gas Emis‑
sions from Dairy Manure Management Practices Using Survey Data and Lifecycle Tools”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 143, 1 Pages 169‑179, February 2017, https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616321953.
33 Ibid.
34 Roehe R, Dewhurst RJ, Duthie C‑A, Rooke JA, McKain N, Ross DW, et al. (2016)
“Bovine Host Genetic Variation Inuences Rumen Microbial Methane Production with
Best Selection Criterion for Low Methane Emitting and Eciently Feed Converting Hosts
Based on Metagenomic Gene Abundance.” PLoS Genet 12(2): e1005846. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005846.
35 Nikos Alexandratos and Jelle Bruinsma, “World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: the
2012 Revision”, ESA Working paper No. 12‑03, FAO, 2012.
36 Ibid.
37 USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service, Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade.
38 World Agriculture Toward 2030/2050, the 2012 Revision.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid.
41 FAO, “Africa Sustainable Livestock 2050”, FAO Animal Production and Health Report.
No. 12, Technical Meeting and Regional Launch, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 21–23 February
2017, http://www.fao.org/3/a‑i7222e.pdf.
42 Ibid.
43 Lutz Goedde, Amandla Ooko‑Ombaka, and Gillian Pais, “Winning in Africa’s Agricul‑
tural Market”, McKinsey & Company, February 2019, https://www.mckinsey.com/
industries/agriculture/our‑insights/winning‑in‑africas‑agricultural‑market.
44 Africa News, “Agri‑tech Can Turn African Savannah into Global Food Basket – African
Development Bank”, Africa News, Oct. 25, 2018, https://www.africanews.com/2018/10/25/
agri‑tech‑can‑turn‑african‑savannah‑into‑global‑food‑basket‑african‑development‑bank/.
45 Ibid.
46 US EPA, Learning about Biogas Recovery, https://www.epa.gov/agstar/learn‑about‑bio‑
gas‑recovery (accessed April 2019).
47 US EPA, “Market Opportunities for Biogas Recovery Systems at U.S. Livestock Facili‑
ties”, June 2018, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/les/2018‑06/documents/
epa430r18006agstarmarketreport2018.pdf.
48 US EPA, AgStar Data and Trends, https://www.epa.gov/agstar/agstar‑data‑and‑trends.
49 Ibid.
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 27
82 World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050, the 2012 Revision.
83 Growth in crop production comes on account of growth in crop yields and expansion in
the physical area (arable land) allocated to crops which, together with increases in cropping
intensities (i.e. by increasing multiple cropping and/or shortening of fallow periods), leads to
an expansion in the actually harvested area
84 World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050, the 2012 Revision.
85 Ibid.
86 Ibid.
87 Ibid.
88 Ibid.
89 Ibid (note: estimate takes out food waste and non‑human consumption uses).
90 Ibid.
91 Ma Zhiping, “Hybrid Rice Yields Hope for Farmers”, China Daily, April 23, 2019,
https://www.chinadailyhk.com/articles/177/117/54/1555993699396.html.
92 Ibid.
93 Robert Flynn and John Idowu, “Nitrogen Fixation by Legumes”, New Mexico State
University, College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, Guide A‑121,
June 2015, https://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_a/A129/.
94 Megan Molteni, “Farmers Can Now Buy Designer Microbes to Replace Fertilzer”,
WIRED, October 2, 2018, https://www.wired.com/story/farmers‑can‑now‑buy‑
designer‑microbes‑to‑replace‑fertilizer/.
95 Ibid.
96 Arizton, “Vertical Farming Market in the United States: Outlook and Forecast
2019−2024”, 2019, www.arizton.com/.
97 Urban Vine, What is a Growing Medium? (A Denition for Beginners), https://www.
urbanvine.co/blog/3‑basic‑types‑of‑soil‑less‑growing‑methods‑beginner‑urban‑growers‑
should‑know‑about/.
98 Agrilyst, “State of Indoor Farming 2017”, https://www.agrilyst.com/stateondoor
farming2017/#cta/.
99 Arizton, Vertical Farming Market in the United States: Outlook and Forecast 2019−2024.
100 Chris Michael, “e Best Crops For Vertical Farming”, Zipgrow, January 17, 2017,
http://blog.zipgrow.com/best‑crops‑for‑vertical‑farming/
101 Agrilyst, State of Indoor Farming 2017.
65 Elaine Watson, “Clean Meat: How Do US Consumers Feel about Cell Cultured Meat?”,
Food Navigator‑USA.com, Aug. 1, 2018, https://www.foodnavigator‑usa.com/
Article/2018/08/01/Clean‑meat‑How‑do‑US‑consumers‑feel‑about‑cell‑cultured‑meat/.
66 Ibid.
67 Carl Zimmer, “How the First Farmers Changed History”, e New York Times, October
17, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/science/ancient‑farmers‑archaeology‑dna.
html.
68 Replantable Magazine, “e Fourth Agriculture Revolution”, Medium, July 18, 2016,
https://medium.com/replantable‑magazine/the‑fourth‑agricultural‑
revolution‑492a6aebdf9f/.
69 Ibid.
70 Ibid.
71 DNV GL AS, UN Global Impact, and Sustainability, “Global Opportunity Report 2017,
DNV GL AS”, https://www.unglobalcompact.org/library/5081.
72 FAOs Work on Climate Change 2017.
73 DNV GL AS, Global Opportunity Report 2017.
74 Flora Southey, “Our World is Entering a Fourth Agricultural Revolution Says UK Envi‑
ronment Secretary”, Food Navigator.com, January 4, 2019, https://www.foodnavigator.com/
Article/2019/01/04/Our‑world‑is‑entering‑a‑fourth‑agricultural‑revolution‑says‑UK‑
environment‑secretary/.
75 Laura Sayre, “How Carbon Farming Could Halt Climate Change”, e New Food
Economy, Aug. 10, 2017. https://newfoodeconomy.org/how‑carbon‑farming‑could‑halt‑
climate‑change/.
76 Cornelius Oertel, Jorg Matschullet, Kamal Zurba, Frank Zimmerman, and Stefan Erasmi,
“Greenhouse gas emissions from soils – a review”, Geochemistry, Vol. 76, Issue 3, pp. 327‑352,
October 2016, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009281916300551/.
77 Ibid.
78 Ibid.
79 Neville Millar, “Management of Nitrogen Fertilizer to Reduce Nitrous Oxide Emissions
from Field Crops (E3152)”, Michigan State University Extension, Oct. 19, 2015, https://
www.canr.msu.edu/resources/management_of_nitrogen_fertilizer_to_reduce_nitrous_ox‑
ide_emissions_from_/.
80 Ibid.
81 Christina Procopiou, “irty Percent of CO2 Released into Atmosphere from Soil
Originates from the Deep Subsurface”, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Earth &
Environmental Sciences, October 30, 2018, https://eesa.lbl.gov/study‑nds‑30‑percent‑of‑
co2‑released‑into‑atmosphere‑from‑soil‑originates‑in‑the‑deep‑subsurface/.
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 28
120 Global Agriculture, “Industrial Agriculture and Small Scale Farming”, Global Agricul‑
ture, https://www.globalagriculture.org/report‑topics/industrial‑
agriculture‑and‑small‑scale‑farming.html (accessed May 2019).
121 FAO, “e Future of Food and Agriculture: Trends and Challenges”, 2017, http://www.
fao.org/3/a‑i6583e.pdf.
122 National Restaurant Association, “What ’s Hot: 2019 Culinary Forecast”, https://www.
restaurant.org/Downloads/PDFs/Research/WhatsHot/WhatsHotFinal2019.pdf.
123 Cargill, “e Shifting Global Dairy Market”, 2018, https://www.cargill.com/
doc/1432126152938/dairy‑white‑paper‑2018.pdf.
124 Ibid.
125 Sigal Samuel, “Every Burger King in the Country Will Have Meatless Whoppers by the
End of the Year”, Vox, April 29, 2019, https://www.vox.com/future‑
perfect/2019/4/29/18522640/burger‑king‑impossible‑whopper‑vegan‑meat.
126 FAO denes “loss” as food that is lost throughout the supply chain between producer and
market and “waste” as the discarding of food that is otherwise safe for human consumption.
127 FAO, SAVE FOOD: Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction, http://www.
fao.org/save‑food/resources/keyndings/en/ (accessed May 2019).
128 FAO, Food Wastage Footprint & Climate Change Fact Sheet, http://www.fao.org/3/a‑
bb144e.pdf
129 Ibid.
130 Ibid.
131 Paula Rodriquez, “What ’s New: How is the cold chain growing in developing coun‑
tries?”, InpiraFarms, August 14, 2018, http://www.inspirafarms.com/whats‑new‑how‑is‑
the‑cold‑chain‑growing‑in‑developing‑countries/.
132 John M. Mandyck and Eric B. Schultz, “Food Foolish: e Hidden Connection between
Food Waste, Hunger, and Climate Change”, Carrier Corporation, 2015.
133 ReFED, 27 Solutions to Food Waste, Financial Benet, https://www.refed.
com/?sort=economic‑value‑per‑ton (accessed May 2019).
134 ReFED, 27 Solutions to Food Waste, Emissions Reduced, https://www.refed.
com/?sort=emissions‑reduced (accessed May 2019). Note: Analysis takes into account the
producing, processing, and transporting of food, and methane emissions from food disposed
of in landlls.
135 Ibid.
136 ReFED, Waste Tracking and Analytics, https://www.refed.com/solutions/waste‑
tracking‑and‑analytics (accessed May 2019).
102 Conrad Zeidler, Daniel Schubert, and Vincent Vrakking. “Vertical Farm 2.0: Designing
an Economically Feasible Vertical Farm—A combined European Endeavor for Sustainable
Urban Agriculture”, ResearchGate, 2017, https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/321427717_Vertical_Farm_20_Designing_an_Economically_Feasible_
ertical_Farm_‑_A_combined_European_Endeavor_for_Sustainable_Urban_Agriculture.
103 DNV GL AS, Global Opportunity Report 2017.
104 Modern Agriculture, “Sustainability in ree Dimensions: Reaching New Heights with
Vertical Farms and Robots”, December 20, 2018, https://modernag.org/innovation/
benets‑vertical‑farming‑robotics/.
105 David Widmar, “Global Acreage: Is the Expansion Over?”, Agriculture Economic
Insights, April 20, 2018, https://ageconomists.com/2018/04/30/global‑acreage‑is‑the‑
expansion‑over/.
106 Arizton, Vertical Farming in the United States.
107 Arizton, Vertical Farming in the United States.
108 Agrilyst, State of Indoor Farming 2017.
109 NationMaster, Agriculture, Workers per Hectare: Countries Compared, https://www.
nationmaster.com/country‑info/stats/Agriculture/Workers‑per‑hectare (accessed April
2019).
110 Laura Sayre, How Carbon Farming Could Halt Climate Change.
111 Modern Agriculture, “Conserving Energy with Conservation Tillage: Conservation
Tillage Techniques in Modern Agriculture Helping Reduce Emissions”, February 11, 2017,
https://modernag.org/energy‑conservation/conserve‑energy‑with‑conservation‑tillage/.
112 Rodale Institute, “Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down to
Earth Solution to Climate Change”, https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp‑content/uploads/
Regenerative‑Organic‑Agriculture‑White‑Paper.pdf.
113 Modern Agriculture, “It all Starts with Soil: Importance of healthy soil in agriculture”,
February 1, 2017, https://modernag.org/soil‑health/the‑benets‑of‑fertile‑soil/.
114 Ibid.
115 Ibid.
116 Neville Millar, Management of Nitrogen Fertilizer to Reduce Nitrous Oxide Emissions
from Field Crops.
117 Acrocares website: https://www.agrocares.com/en.
118 Peter, Kipkemoi, “e Pros and Cons of Drones in Agriculture”, Drone Guru, January
27, 2019, http://www.droneguru.net/the‑pros‑and‑cons‑of‑drones‑in‑agriculture/.
119 Ibid.
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 29
155 Ibid.
156 Ceres, Measure the Chain: Tools for Assessing GHG Emissions in Agricultural Supply
Chains, https://engagethechain.org/resources/measure‑chain‑tools‑assessing‑ghg‑
emissions‑agricultural‑supply‑chains?_ga=2.111061507.742632478.1560269041‑
178895896.1560269041 (accessed May 2019).
157 Unilever, Improving the Visibility of Our Supply Chain, https://www.unilever.com/
sustainable‑living/reducing‑environmental‑impact/sustainable‑sourcing/
transforming‑the‑palm‑oil‑industry/improving‑the‑visibility‑of‑our‑supply‑chain/
(accessed May 2019).
158 RSPO, #goodbadpalmoil, https://rspo.org/about/goodbadpalmoil.
159 Indigo Agriculture, “Indigo Agriculture and Anheuser‑Busch Partner to Meet Sustain‑
ability Goals for Rice Production”, Press Release, March 11, 2019, https://www.indigoag.
com/pages/news/indigo‑partners‑with‑anheuser‑busch‑for‑sustainable‑rice?hsCtaTrack‑
ing=078c2374‑fda0‑44b0‑83ca‑df7c70ee008a%7Cb71849f9‑3882‑45ba‑9af6‑485ef‑
85c75a2.
160 World Wildlife Federation, Palm Oil Buyers Scorecard, Manufacturers 2016, http://
palmoilscorecard.panda.org/check‑the‑scores/manufacturers.
161 RSPO website: https://www.rspo.org/about.
162 Green America, “Major Food Companies Join to Address Climate Change and Healthy
Soils by Creating a New Standard Focused on Regenerative Agriculture”, Press Release,
March 6, 2018, https://www.greenamerica.org/press‑release/major‑food‑companies‑join‑
address‑climate‑change‑and‑healthy‑soils‑creating‑new‑standard‑focused‑regenerative.
163 Soil Carbon Initiative website: https://www.soilcarboninitiative.org/about.
164 Nature Conservancy, “A Natural Path for U.S. Climate Action”, Global Insights and
Perspective, November 14, 2018, https://www.nature.org/en‑us/what‑we‑do/our‑insights/
perspectives/a‑natural‑path‑for‑u‑s‑climate‑action/.
165 Joseph E. Fargione, Steve Bassett, Tomothy Boucher, et. al “Natural climate solutions for
the United States”, Science Advances, Vol. 4, No. 11, November 14, 2018, http://advances.
sciencemag.org/content/4/11/eaat1869.
166 Bob Berwyn, “Warming Drives Unexpected Pulses of CO2 from Forest Soil”, Inside
News, October 5, 2017, https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05102017/forest‑soil‑co2‑
carbon‑global‑warming‑climate‑change‑study.
167 A. Baccini1, W. Walker, L. Carvalho, M. Farina, D. Sulla‑Menashe, and R. A. Houghton,
“Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and
loss”, Science, Vol. 358, Issue 6360, October 13, 2017, http://science.sciencemag.org/
content/358/6360/230.
168 Morgan Erikson‑Davis, “Why New Forests are Better at Sequestering Carbon than Old
Ones”, Pacic Standard, February 27, 2019, https://psmag.com/environment/young‑trees‑
suck‑up‑more‑carbon‑than‑old‑ones.
137 ReFED, Consumer Education Campaigns, https://www.refed.com/solutions/
consumer‑education‑campaigns (accessed May 2019).
138 Ibid.
139 Julie Kurtz and Farm Aid, “Farm Bill 101”, Farm Aid Fact Sheet, May 22, 2018, https://
www.farmaid.org/issues/farm‑policy/farm‑bill‑101/.
140 Ibid.
141 Ibid.
142 Farm Aid, “What’s in the 2018 Farm Bill? e Good, e Bad and e Oal…”,
December 20, 2018, https://www.farmaid.org/issues/farm‑policy/whats‑in‑the‑2018‑farm‑
bill‑the‑good‑the‑bad‑and‑the‑oal/.
143 Ibid.
144 Matthew Clancy, Keith Fuglie, and Paul Heisey, “U.S. Agricultural R&D in an Era of
Falling Public Funding”, USDA, Economic Research Service, https://www.ers.usda.gov/
amber‑waves/2016/november/us‑agricultural‑rd‑in‑an‑era‑of‑falling‑public‑funding/
(accessed May 2019).
145 Ibid.
146 John F. Sargent, Jr., “Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding: FY2019
(R45150)’, Congressional Research Service, October 4, 2018, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/
R45150.pdf.
147 Ibid.
148 Matthew Clancy, U.S. Agricultural R&D in an Era of Falling Public Funding.
149 Matthew Clancy, U.S. Agricultural R&D in an Era of Falling Public Funding.
150 Stephanie Mercier, “China’s Agricultural Research System”, AGWEB, Straight
from D.C.: Agricultural Perspectives, July 12, 2018, https://www.agweb.com/blog/
straight‑from‑dc‑agricultural‑perspectives/chinas‑agricultural‑research‑system/.
151 Ibid.
152 Ibid.
153 European Commission, Sustainable Land Use (Greening), https://ec.europa.eu/info/
food‑farming‑sheries/key‑policies/common‑agricultural‑policy/income‑support/
greening_en (accessed May 2019).
154 Ceres, Top US Food and Beverage Companies Scope 3 Emission Disclosure and Reduc‑
tions, Engage the Chain, https://engagethechain.org/top‑us‑food‑and‑beverage‑companies‑
scope‑3‑emissions‑disclosure‑and‑reductions?_ga=2.13663287.1631956570.1560268424‑
1905717389.1560268424 (accessed May 2019).
BATTEN REPORT | Path to 2060: Decarbonizing the Agriculture Industry 30
169 Graham Hill, “Hemp, and Lots of It, Could Be One Climate Solution”, Hungton Post,
December 6, 2017, https://www.hupost.com/entry/hemp‑and‑lots‑of‑it‑could_b_328275.
170 Susan Gunuleis, “Is Hemp the Biggest Opportunity in the Cannabis Market?”, Canabiz
Media, April 5, 2019, https://cannabiz.media/hemp‑opportunity‑cannabis‑market/.
171 EDF, A New Crop for Rice Farmers: Carbon Osets, https://www.edf.org/ecosystems/
new‑crop‑rice‑farmers‑carbon‑osets (accessed May 2019).
172 Laura Sayre, How Farming Could Halt Climate Change.
173 AgWeb, “First‑Ever Rice Farming Carbon Credits Sold to Microsoft”, June 14, 2017,
https://www.agweb.com/article/rst‑ever‑rice‑farming‑carbon‑credits‑sold‑to‑microsoft‑
NAA‑ben‑potter
174 Ibid.
175 Robert Parkhurst, “e market for grassland carbon credits is on the rise. Here’s why”,
EDF, July 19, 2018, http://blogs.edf.org/growingreturns/2018/07/19/market‑grassland‑
carbon‑credits‑conservation‑climate‑resilience/.
176 Ibid.
177 EDF, “New Market Opportunity Funds Grassland Conservation as a Carbon Sink”,
Press Release, July 17, 2018, https://www.edf.org/media/new‑market‑opportunity‑
funds‑grassland‑conservation‑carbon‑sink.
