research on agriculture and food

• Our Program Divisions
• Our Three Academies
• Government Affairs
• Statement on Diversity and Inclusion
• Our Study Process
• Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures
• Project Comments and Information
• Read Our Expert Reports and Published Proceedings
• Explore PNAS, the Flagship Scientific Journal of NAS
• Access Transportation Research Board Publications
• Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Economic Recovery
• Fellowships and Grants
• Publications by Division
• Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
• Division on Earth and Life Studies
• Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
• Gulf Research Program
• Health and Medicine Division
• Policy and Global Affairs Division
• Transportation Research Board
• National Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Engineering
• National Academy of Medicine
• Publications by Topic
• Agriculture
• Behavioral and Social Sciences
• Biography and Autobiography
• Biology and Life Sciences
• Computers and Information Technology
• Conflict and Security Issues
• Earth Sciences
• Energy and Energy Conservation
• Engineering and Technology
• Environment and Environmental Studies
• Food and Nutrition
• Health and Medicine
• Industry and Labor
• Math, Chemistry, and Physics
• Policy for Science and Technology
• Space and Aeronautics
• Surveys and Statistics
• Transportation and Infrastructure
• Searchable Collections
• New Releases

VIEW LARGER COVER

Science Breakthroughs to Advance Food and Agricultural Research by 2030

For nearly a century, scientific advances have fueled progress in U.S. agriculture to enable American producers to deliver safe and abundant food domestically and provide a trade surplus in bulk and high-value agricultural commodities and foods. Today, the U.S. food and agricultural enterprise faces formidable challenges that will test its long-term sustainability, competitiveness, and resilience. On its current path, future productivity in the U.S. agricultural system is likely to come with trade-offs. The success of agriculture is tied to natural systems, and these systems are showing signs of stress, even more so with the change in climate.

More than a third of the food produced is unconsumed, an unacceptable loss of food and nutrients at a time of heightened global food demand. Increased food animal production to meet greater demand will generate more greenhouse gas emissions and excess animal waste. The U.S. food supply is generally secure, but is not immune to the costly and deadly shocks of continuing outbreaks of food-borne illness or to the constant threat of pests and pathogens to crops, livestock, and poultry. U.S. farmers and producers are at the front lines and will need more tools to manage the pressures they face.

Science Breakthroughs to Advance Food and Agricultural Research by 2030 identifies innovative, emerging scientific advances for making the U.S. food and agricultural system more efficient, resilient, and sustainable. This report explores the availability of relatively new scientific developments across all disciplines that could accelerate progress toward these goals. It identifies the most promising scientific breakthroughs that could have the greatest positive impact on food and agriculture, and that are possible to achieve in the next decade (by 2030).

RESOURCES AT A GLANCE

• Press Release
• Report Highlights
• Interactive Overview of Breakthrough Opportunities

• Agriculture — Policy, Reviews and Evaluations
• Food and Nutrition — Policy, Reviews and Evaluations
• Earth Sciences — Policy, Reviews and Evaluations
• Environment and Environmental Studies — Policy, Reviews and Evaluations

Suggested Citation

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Science Breakthroughs to Advance Food and Agricultural Research by 2030 . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25059. Import this citation to: Bibtex EndNote Reference Manager

Publication Info

• Paperback:  978-0-309-47392-7
• Ebook:  978-0-309-47395-8

What is skim?

The Chapter Skim search tool presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter. You may select key terms to highlight them within pages of each chapter.

• Interactive Overview of Breakthrough Opportunities Read Description: This study identified five convergent breakthrough opportunities. Some are in early stages of development, while others are on the cusp of widespread application.

This brief video outlines some of the key background info and major conclusions of this report.

Report Release Webinar

The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine held a public release webinar for the report on Wednesday, July 18. The webinar featured a presentation and live Q&A by the co-chairs and two committee members of the report’s authoring committee:– Susan R. Wessler, NAS, University of California, Riverside (co-chair)– John D. Floros, New Mexico State University (co-chair)– Corrie Brown, University of Georgia– Gregory V. Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University

Copyright Information

The National Academies Press (NAP) has partnered with Copyright Clearance Center's Marketplace service to offer you a variety of options for reusing NAP content. Through Marketplace, you may request permission to reprint NAP content in another publication, course pack, secure website, or other media. Marketplace allows you to instantly obtain permission, pay related fees, and print a license directly from the NAP website. The complete terms and conditions of your reuse license can be found in the license agreement that will be made available to you during the online order process. To request permission through Marketplace you are required to create an account by filling out a simple online form. The following list describes license reuses offered by the NAP through Marketplace:

• Republish text, tables, figures, or images in print
• Post on a secure Intranet/Extranet website
• Use in a PowerPoint Presentation
• Distribute via CD-ROM

Click here to obtain permission for the above reuses. If you have questions or comments concerning the Marketplace service, please contact:

Marketplace Support International +1.978.646.2600 US Toll Free +1.855.239.3415 E-mail: [email protected] marketplace.copyright.com

To request permission to distribute a PDF, please contact our Customer Service Department at [email protected] .

What is a prepublication?

An uncorrected copy, or prepublication, is an uncorrected proof of the book. We publish prepublications to facilitate timely access to the committee's findings.

What happens when I pre-order?

The final version of this book has not been published yet. You can pre-order a copy of the book and we will send it to you when it becomes available. We will not charge you for the book until it ships. Pricing for a pre-ordered book is estimated and subject to change. All backorders will be released at the final established price. As a courtesy, if the price increases by more than $3.00 we will notify you. If the price decreases, we will simply charge the lower price. Applicable discounts will be extended.

Downloading and Using eBooks from NAP

What is an ebook.

An ebook is one of two file formats that are intended to be used with e-reader devices and apps such as Amazon Kindle or Apple iBooks.

Why is an eBook better than a PDF?

A PDF is a digital representation of the print book, so while it can be loaded into most e-reader programs, it doesn't allow for resizable text or advanced, interactive functionality. The eBook is optimized for e-reader devices and apps, which means that it offers a much better digital reading experience than a PDF, including resizable text and interactive features (when available).

Where do I get eBook files?

eBook files are now available for a large number of reports on the NAP.edu website. If an eBook is available, you'll see the option to purchase it on the book page.

View more FAQ's about Ebooks

Types of Publications

Consensus Study Report: Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Journal of Agriculture and Food Research

Volume 4 • Issue 4

• ISSN: 2666-1543
• 5 Year impact factor: 4.9
• Impact factor: 4.8
• Journal metrics

The Journal of Agriculture and Food Research is a peer-reviewed open access journal focusing on research in the agricultural and food sciences. The journal welcomes full length re… Read more

Subscription options

Institutional subscription on sciencedirect.

The Journal of Agriculture and Food Research is a peer-reviewed open access journal focusing on research in the agricultural and food sciences. The journal welcomes full length research articles, reviews, short communications, perspectives, and commentaries from researchers in academic institutions, international research centers, and public and private research organizations. The journal has a special interest in the research that links agriculture and food together, and editors will prioritize to publish papers in this interdisciplinary field. Special issues covering topics in a specific subject area and conference proceedings are also considered for publication. Relevant research areas include, but are not limited to:

•Agricultural production •Agricultural technology •Agricultural management •Agricultural environment •Agricultural and food economics and policy •Food chemistry and physics •Food nutrition and health •Food quality and safety •Food processing and manufacturing •Food technology and engineering

Journal of Agriculture and Food Research adheres to strict ethical publication guidelines and actively supports a culture of inclusive and representative publication.

FFAR Celebrates 10 Year Anniversary

Learn more about our decade of impact.

Food & Agriculture Thought Leaders Share Their Insights

Read Our Insights

Insights provide an opportunity to share important views, perspectives, research and opinions about current food and agriculture topics.

Benefitting American Farmers

Understand how we leverage federal investment and help ensure U.S. competitiveness.

FFAR unveils a research strategy. Read more.

Our Research Addresses Critical Priority Areas

Our bold research in each Priority Area advances solutions to complex agriculture issues and challenges that farmers currently face.

Check out our Open Opportunities

• Sustaining Vibrant Agroecosystems Our Agroecosystems research deepens our understanding of how agriculture systems interact with the surrounding environment.
• Bolstering Healthy Food Systems Our Food Systems research promotes the availability of nutritious foods, improves human health, develops novel food processes and products and advances the U.S. food system’s functionality.
• Cultivating Thriving Production Systems Our Production Systems research supports animal and crop systems by increasing productivity, combating pest and disease, supporting animal welfare and safeguarding farmers’ livelihoods.
• Scientific Workforce

FFAR Intro Video

We invest in research that produces actionable results, which benefit farmers, consumers and the environment. Our research results are publicly available.

• 360+ grants awarded
• 1:1.4 ratio of FFAR funding to matching funds
• 550+ funding partners

Results That Go FFAR

Our Breakthroughs outline findings and successes resulting from FFAR-funded research.

See all Breakthroughs

Developing an Extensive Database of US Groundwater Wells

Breakthrough for Achieving Sustainable Groundwater Management Through Innovative Governance & Optimal Agricultural Water Use Under Conflicting Objectives

Dr. Landon Marston and his research team created the Database of Groundwater Wells in the United States, a major undertaking compiling records of over 14 million groundwater wells across the United States that is a crucial decision-support tool for improving groundwater management and conservation.

Building Collaborations for Technology-Driven Solutions in Agriculture

Breakthrough for Open Technology Ecosystem for Agricultural Management (OpenTEAM)

Building Food System Interventions to Support Urban & Rural Communities

Breakthrough for Integrating Community and Modeling Efforts to Evaluate Impacts and Tradeoffs of Food System Interventions

Our Insights highlight unique perspectives from across the food and agriculture community.

See all Insights

August 23, 2024

Cracking the Code of Texture:

FFAR Fellow, NC State University

August 22, 2024

Entrepreneur Attributes Kirchner HBCU Fellowship to Career Success

Kwame Terra MPH

Kirchner Fellowship HBCU 2021 Cohort

August 9, 2024

Reducing Enteric Methane Emissions from Dairy Cattle

Dr. Francisco Peñagaricano and Dr. Guillermo Martinez Boggio

August 1, 2024

Building Diversity & Inclusion in the Agriculture Technology Venture Capital Industry

LaKisha Odom, Ph.D.

Scientific Program Director Sustaining Vibrant Agroecosystems

July 29, 2024

Unlocking Peanut Potential

Samuele Lamon

FFAR Fellow, University of Georgia

July 22, 2024

Advancing Ecosystem Service Markets for Sustainable Farming

LaKisha Odom & DJ May

June 25, 2024

Feeding Bees Through Diversity

FFAR Fellow, Washington State University

May 16, 2024

Precision Agriculture Tools for Livestock Production

Caleb J. Grohmann

FFAR Fellow, University of Missouri

April 22, 2024

The Next Frontier for Biotechnology & the Future of Forestry

Samantha Surber

April 9, 2024

A Place for Everyone in Agriculture

Dr. LaKisha Odom & Jocelyn Hittle

March 25, 2024

Transforming Agriculture with Data and Artificial Intelligence

Shiang-Wan Chin, FFAR Fellow

Cornell University

February 19, 2024

Closing the Loop

Madeline Desjardins, FFAR Fellow

Washington State University

January 19, 2024

Importance of Bacteria in Identifying Bovine Respiratory Disease

Ruth Eunice Centeno Martinez

FFAR Fellow, Purdue University

January 11, 2024

Let’s Raise a Glass on National Milk Day to the Power of Agriculture Research

Krysta Harden

President and CEO U.S. Dairy Export Council

December 19, 2023

The Innovation Dilemma: Why Adoption Rates for Agricultural Technologies Lag Behind

Enrique Pena Martinez, FFAR Fellow

Raleigh, North Carolina

November 28, 2023

Building Team Chemistry: The Bigger Picture Behind Cows & Climate

Conor McCabe

Animal Biology Graduate Student, UC Davis

November 16, 2023

Insight on Livestock Methane Mitigation

Dr. Rod Mackie, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 

Champaign, IL

October 19, 2023

Finding a New Way to Control Weeds in Cotton.

FFAR Fellow, Texas A&M University

October 9, 2023

Indigenous Farmers are Leading a “New Green Revolution” Focused on Hemp

James DeDecker, Director, Michigan State University – Upper Peninsula Research and Extension Center Mary Donner, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians – Ziibimijwang Farm Executive Director and Tribal Citizen

September 28, 2023

Filling the Hemp Research Gap

Dr. Saharah Moon Chapotin & Eric Hurlock

The latest news and updates from FFAR.

See all News

August 28, 2024

Grant Developing Tomato Resistance to Parasitic Weed

Grant develops cotton-based precision irrigation to improve sustainability.

August 21, 2024

FFAR and North Carolina State Announce 2024 FFAR Fellows

August 16, 2024

Grant Improves Stress Tolerance in Carrots

August 14, 2024

AgMission Grant Evaluates Successful Incentives for Persistent Cover Crop Adoption

July 31, 2024

ICASA Award Addresses Antimicrobial Stewardship for Bovine Respiratory Disease

July 30, 2024

FFAR Grant to Improve Sorghum & Strengthen Nutritional Security

Ffar & foodshot global announce groundbreaker prize winners in water research.

July 26, 2024

Swine Wean-to-Harvest Biosecurity Program Funds Additional Research

July 25, 2024

FFAR Names Sixth Cohort of Veterinary Fellows

July 16, 2024

Advancing Circular Bioeconomy with Biomass Feedstocks

July 11, 2024

U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef & FFAR Announce Focus Group Series to Develop Sustainable Beef Research Roadmap

June 27, 2024

Student Teams Combat Climate Change

Ffar & nwo launch greenhouses in transition & welcome proposals.

June 18, 2024

FFAR’s Rapid Response Program Welcomes Avian Flu Research Proposals

June 17, 2024

AgMission & PepsiCo Grants Bolster Climate-Resilient Farms & Value Chains

June 13, 2024

AgMission™ Funds Global Youth Consultation to Co-Create Agricultural Solutions with Young Farmers

June 12, 2024

FFAR Accepting Applications for Harvest for Health Breakthrough Crop Challenge

June 11, 2024

Secretary Vilsack Announces USDA and FFAR Innovation Challenge to Catalyze Agricultural Solutions

April 17, 2024

FFAR Grant Unites Urban Agriculture Operations to Increase Food Security

Want to do more to support our pioneering research.

• Get Involved

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates.

Email address Submit

Follow FFAR

Agricultural and Food Economics

Thematic Collections

From time to time, the Journal publishes Thematic Collections on topics of special interest. Watch out for collections that are currently open for submissions, and recent collections:

Call for Papers! Short Food Supply Chains and Transitions to Sustainable and Resilient Food Systems

 This Collection aims to assemble recent research to critically evaluate the opportunities, obstacles and solutions for short food supply chains within the broad frame of transitions to sustainable and resilient food systems.  Guest editors:   Andrea Marescotti (University of Florence, Italy),  Christopher James Maughan (Coventry University, UK), Erik Mathijs (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium), Giovanni Belletti  (University of Florence, Italy), Matteo Mengoni (University of Florence, Italy),  Moya Kneafsey (Coventry University, UK).  Submission Deadline:  31 December 2024

Call for Papers! Food Systems Innovation in Africa

This Collection aims to include theoretical and empirical papers on economic, social, environmental, nutritional and political aspects that influence innovation towards more sustainable African food systems. In particular, it will consider fundamental research that contributes to the understanding of transition and change in food systems.  Guest editors :  Paolo Prosperi  (Montpellier Interdisciplinary Center on Sustainable Agri-food Systems),  Mila Sell (Natural Resources Institute Finland, Luke),  Kaleab Baye  (Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia).  Submission Deadline: 29 February 2024

Past Thematic Collections collections on topics of special interest are available for consultation:

• Green metamorphosis: Agriculture, food, ecology : Edited by Luca Camanzi and Stefania Troiano.  Published: February - May 2021
• Cooperative strategies and value creation in a sustainable food supply chain : Edited by Caterina Contini, Biancamaria Torquati, and Giuseppe Marotta.  Published: January 2020
• The future of agriculture between globalization and local markets : Edited by Maria Bonaventura Forleo and Bernardo Corrado de Gennaro.  Published: July 2019
• The value of food: Internationalization, competition and local development in agro-food systems : Edited by Alessandro Sorrentino and Simone Severini.  Published: August 2017 - September 2017
• The CAP 2014-2020: Scenarios for Europe's agri-food and rural systems : Edited by Giuseppe Marotta and Concetta Nazzaro.  Published: August 2015 - July 2016
• Sustainability and innovation in chain and network : Edited by Luigi Cembalo and Alessandro Banterle.  Published January - February 2015
• Most accessed

Structural dynamics and sustainability in the agricultural sector: the case of the European Union

Authors: Bo Peng, Rasa Melnikiene, Tomas Balezentis and Giulio Paolo Agnusdei

Nutritional implications of substituting plant-based proteins for meat: evidence from home scan data

Authors: Wisdom Dogbe, Yihan Wang and Cesar Revoredo-Giha

Safety assessment of agricultural products and the pesticide regulation trend in China

Authors: Yitian Shao, Jianwei Ni, Shengjia Zhou, Yiping Wang and Xuanxuan Jin

Food security and large-scale land acquisitions by sovereign wealth funds: a systematic review of the literature from 2012 to 2023

Authors: Jordan Blekking, Dalal Aassouli and Ray Jureidini

The effect of farm size and farmland use on agricultural diversification: a spatial analysis of Brazilian municipalities

Authors: José Luiz Parré, André Luis Squarize Chagas and Mary Paula Arends-Kuenning

Most recent articles RSS

View all articles

The impact of agricultural cooperatives membership on the wellbeing of smallholder farmers: empirical evidence from eastern Ethiopia

Authors: Musa Hasen Ahmed and Hiwot Mekonnen Mesfin

Sustainability in the wine industry: key questions and research trends a

Authors: Cristina Santini, Alessio Cavicchi and Leonardo Casini

The dark and the bright side of power: implications for the management of business-to-business relationships

Authors: Vera Belaya and Jon Henrich Hanf

Determinants of food insecurity in the rural farm households in South Wollo Zone of Ethiopia: the case of the Teleyayen sub-watershed

Authors: Alem-meta Assefa Agidew and K. N. Singh

Impact of farmer education on farm productivity under varying technologies: case of paddy growers in India

Authors: Kirtti Ranjan Paltasingh and Phanindra Goyari

Most accessed articles RSS

Aims and scope

Agricultural and Food Economics is an international peer-reviewed journal published on behalf of the Italian Society of Agricultural Economics. The editors welcome high-quality, problem-oriented submissions on agriculture and food from a wide variety of socio-economic perspectives and from all over the world.  Completely open access, the journal publishes original research and review articles with innovative results and relevant policy and managerial implications, based on quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Topics of interest include sustainable food systems, food and nutrition security, agricultural and food policy, environmental impacts of agricultural and food activities, market analysis, agri-food firm management and marketing, organization of the agri-food value chains, behavioral economics, food quality and safety issues, food and health economics, trade, sustainable rural development, natural and marine resource economics, and land economics.

Society affiliation

Policy and practitioners’ initiatives to stimulate sustainable consumption have so far failed to have notable impact on individuals’ behaviors. The current commentary is a plea to social and sustainability scientists, particularly to economists dealing with sustainable agri-food systems, to dig deeper into the notion of narratives to trigger societal dynamics that stir consumers toward more sufficient lifestyles. As dominant cultural narratives have a critical role in shaping shared meanings and acceptable behaviors... Click here to read the full text of the latest Commentary by M. Borrello, L. Cembalo, & V. D'Amico .

Understand the costs and funding options

Agricultural and Food Economics  is a 100% Gold Open Access journal. Articles published in Gold OA format confer CC-BY copyright to the author and are immediately available to be read, cited, and built upon by all.  APCs are charged on article acceptance . For further details, see our  article-processing charge webpage . 

Publishing is not without costs, and the journal levies the 2023 APC of £1040.00/$1490.00/€1190.00 for each article accepted for publication. However, authors do not typically pay the fee themselves, and the way your APC is covered has no bearing on the editorial outcome of your submission. 

Did you know that there are almost 200 open access article processing charge (APC) funds available to researchers worldwide? Many funding bodies require that research publications resulting from their grants are made freely available to all. By publishing your research with us you fully comply with open access mandates, and the publishing costs may be entirely covered by the research grant. This means that you won’t have to pay any publishing fee and you retain the copyright (check  here  how to discover more). 

You may also be eligible for a waiver/discount based on unavailability of research funding and/or country of origin (click  here  to discover more).

Are you still unable to find coverage for your article? SpringerOpen offers a free funding and support service to help authors discover and apply for article processing charge funding. Visit the  OA funding and policy support page  to learn more about our  email support service .

Sponsorship

From 2023 to 2027, SIDEA members pay €200.  To receive this funding, members should  contact the journal  to receive instructions.  

• ISSN: 2193-7532 (electronic)
• Sign up for article alerts and news from this journal

Affiliated with

Annual Journal Metrics

Citation Impact 2023 Journal Impact Factor: 4.0 5-year Journal Impact Factor: N/A Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 1.320 SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.780

Speed 2023 Submission to first editorial decision (median days): 26 Submission to acceptance (median days): 193

Usage 2023 Downloads: 493,827 Altmetric mentions: 128

• More about our metrics
• Follow us on Facebook

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

USDA Science and Research Strategy

Innovation challenge.

On June 11, 2024, Secretary Vilsack announced the “Nourishing Next Generation Agrifood Breakthroughs” Innovation Challenge. Presented in partnership with the Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research (FFAR), this challenge will fund selected dynamic and disruptive research projects and technologies to advance nutrition security.

Competitive proposals will simultaneously address themes of human nutrition and health; climate-smart agriculture; and social equity, justice and opportunity. A total of $1-2 million will be awarded across multiple teams and projects to pursue unconventional ideas with the potential to produce major breakthroughs.

Apply Today

Applications are due Monday, July 29, 2024.

To find out more, register for the information webinar, and view the Request for Application, you may visit the following link: Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research Innovation Challenge page .

The "USDA Science and Research Strategy, 2023-2026: Cultivating Scientific Innovation" presents a vision for transforming U.S. agriculture through science and innovation, and outlines USDA’s highest scientific priorities. Learn how you can become part of this visionary strategy. Chart a course towards addressing pressing societal challenges by seizing opportunities to revolutionize the food, agriculture, and natural resource sectors.

Download the Strategy (PDF, 21.4 MB)

Join the Conversation and Shape the Future of Agriculture!

We're turning intention into action and we're calling on YOU— our partners and stakeholders—to join us on this journey. Together, we're crafting a future that's innovative, sustainable, and transformative for agriculture and beyond.

Share Your Input

Your voice matters! Have insights, ideas, or expertise to share? We want to hear them. Your input is invaluable as we lay the groundwork for real change. Share your thoughts by emailing [email protected] .

Lead a Discussion

Imagine being a catalyst for change in your own community. Take charge by hosting your own stakeholder discussion. Download this “ Lead a Discussion” Digital Toolkit (ZIP, 33.1 MB)  and use this resource to gather your community, share ideas, and contribute to the vision of a progressive agricultural landscape. 

Share with Your Network

Want to share these ideas with your network? Share the USDA Science & Research Strategy 2023-2026 and use the hashtags: #USDAScience  | #USDAScienceMovesMe

Stay Connected and Informed

Stay connected on USDA Science and Research efforts. Bookmark this page to explore updates, resources, and insights. Follow @USDAScience for the latest science updates.

Five Priorities, One Vision

We're embarking on a journey to turn intention into action and we're calling on YOU—our partners and stakeholders—to be the architects of change. Together, we're crafting a future that's innovative, sustainable, and transformative for agriculture and beyond.

USDA is identifying and developing approaches that support innovative, resilient, and commercially viable technologies and practices at a transformative pace to strengthen overall wellbeing.

Download this One-Pager to Learn More (PDF, 2.1 MB)

USDA will advance research that is co-developed with the public to address risks from long-term and acute climate stressors, generate potential new revenue streams, and improve climate resilience.

USDA will deliver innovative, science-based best practices and opportunities to support decisions related to food and nutrition security, dietary guidance, personalized food choices, food safety, nutrition, and agriculture.

Download this One-Pager to Learn More (PDF, 2.7 MB)

USDA will address place-and-scale-appropriate needs through science-based solutions targeting multi-faceted and pressing goals to ensure agricultural productivity, sustainability, and resilience.

USDA works to empower open, science-based, and data-driven information, communicate solutions that promote understanding and action, and foster a culture where policy informs, encourages, and advances scientific innovation and adoption.

Innovation at USDA

USDA Science is working to revolutionize the food, agriculture and natural resources sectors by investing in a diversified portfolio that accelerates transformation. USDA embraces the necessity of high-risk, high-reward transdisciplinary research to ensure important science and technology contributions that support our future. This requires accelerating science like biotechnology, precision agriculture, artificial intelligence and robotics and integrating them with human and behavioral sciences in a systems approach to bring bold, sustainable solutions to the nation’s farmers, producers, ranchers and foresters.

Advancing Together for a Better Tomorrow

USDA's commitment reaches across communities, supporting thriving neighborhoods and nourishing our nation. By forging innovation and collaboration together, we can confront challenges as one. This strategy embodies the voices of our stakeholders and partners, harnessing collective expertise for meaningful change.

News, Events and Highlights

USDA-ARS Innovators Honored as Finalists of Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medals for Transformative Contributions to Science and Agriculture

USDA Unveils Updated Plant Hardiness Zone Map

USDA - National Agricultural Statistics Service - Census of Agriculture

Common Ground for Agriculture and Solar Energy: Federal Funding Supports Research and Development in Agrivoltaics

USDA's Agricultural Research Service Honors Scientists of the Year

Two Scientists Named to ARS Science Hall of Fame

Droughts Longer, Rainfall More Erratic Over the Last Five Decades in Most of the West

New Website Documents Check Dams Fixing Erosion of Minor Channels in Southwest

Follow usda science.

Agriculture and Food

Agriculture can help reduce poverty, raise incomes and improve food security for 80% of the world's poor, who live in rural areas and work mainly in farming. The World Bank Group is a leading financier of agriculture.

Healthy, sustainable and inclusive food systems are critical to achieve the world’s development goals. Agricultural development is one of the most powerful tools to end extreme poverty, boost shared prosperity, and feed a projected  10 billion people by 2050 . Growth in the agriculture sector is  two to four times more effective  in raising incomes among the poorest compared to other sectors.

Agriculture is also crucial to economic growth: accounting for 4% of global gross domestic product (GDP) and in some least developing countries,  it can account for more than 25% of GDP .

But agriculture-driven growth, poverty reduction, and food security are at risk: Multiple shocks – from COVID-19 related disruptions to extreme weather, pests, and conflicts – are impacting food systems. The goal of ending global hunger by 2030 is currently off track. Conflicts, climate change, and high food prices are driving food and nutrition insecurity, pushing millions into extreme poverty, and reversing hard-won development gains. Around a quarter of a billion people now face acute food insecurity .

The growing impact of climate change could further cut crop yields, especially in the world’s most food-insecure regions. At the same time, our food systems are responsible for about 30% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Current food systems also threaten the health of people and the planet and generate unsustainable levels of pollution and waste. One third of food produced globally is either lost or wasted. Addressing food loss and waste is critical to improving food and nutrition security, as well as helping to meet climate goals and reduce stress on the environment.

Risks associated with poor diets are also the leading cause of death worldwide. Millions of people are either not eating enough or eating the wrong types of food, resulting in a  double burden of malnutrition  that can lead to illnesses and health crises. Food insecurity can worsen diet quality and increase the risk of various forms of malnutrition, potentially leading to undernutrition as well as people being overweight and obese. An estimated 3 billion people in the world cannot afford a healthy diet.

Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024

The World Bank Group provides knowledge, advice, and financial resources in low- and middle-income countries to transform food systems to reduce poverty and achieve green, resilient, and inclusive development.

Our work in food and agriculture focuses on: 

• Food and nutrition security , where we work with efforts to share information, and to rapidly provide resources where they are needed, while helping countries design the long-term reforms needed to build resilient food and nutrition systems.
• Climate-smart agriculture by working with client governments to provide solutions that address global climate priorities, while recognizing national contexts and development objectives.
• Data-driven digital agriculture by expand the frontier of financing and expertise for digital agriculture.
• Mobilizing capital for development in agriculture & food . We identify and leverage growth areas for productive investments, focusing on innovation and impact. And we design projects to ensure that financing boosts sustainable productivity gains, reaches smallholders and SMEs, and creates jobs to end poverty and hunger.
• Public policy and expenditure by working with governments to facilitate the adoption of more sustainable approaches, technologies, and practices, alongside policies that promote public and private sector investment.
• Sustainable and healthy diets to ensure that food can support a healthy population.

In fiscal year 2024, the World Bank committed US$3 billion in new financing in 2024 – with over 41% of all commitments for Sub-Saharan Africa.

Increasingly, the Bank supports country efforts to transform their food systems by taking a holistic look at public policies and spending for agriculture and food. A Multi-Donor Trust Fund,  Food Systems 2030 , provides a platform for change in this area.

Last Updated: Aug 20, 2024

In Angola, a project  co-financed by the World Bank and the French Agency for Development, contributed to the government economic diversification agenda by supporting the transition from subsistence to a more market-oriented, competitive agriculture sector. The project is helping producers or small and medium enterprises prepare and finance agriculture investments. As of December 2023, 268 projects have been approved, equivalent to about $37 million in agriculture investment. The project funded the first partial credit guarantees scheme ever dedicated to the agriculture sector in Angola – an innovation for the country’s agribusiness sector – mobilizing so far $4.1 million in private bank financing. 

In  Argentina , the Bank supported 14,630 families who benefited from better socioeconomic inclusion. Under the project, 2,409 families accessed water for human and animal consumption, also irrigation; 7,499 rural families improved their productive capacity; and over 900 families accessed infrastructure, equipment and training that improved their marketing. Based on the model of productive alliances, 2,801 families from different regions became beneficiaries by linking their production with the markets. Among the funded activities, the production of honey, orchards, forage, livestock, nuts, spices, yerba mate and tea, among others, stand out.

In Benin, between 2011-2021, the Agricultural Productivity and Diversification Project facilitated the adoption of productivity-enhancing technologies for 327,503 crop producers, leading to 135,549 hectares of land cultivated with improved technologies. The project interventions resulted in increased yields from 0.45 ton to 0.81 ton for cashew; from 1.2 tons to 2.97 tons for maize, from 4 tons to 6.2 tons for rice, and from 50 tons to 70 tons for pineapple. The project led to significant increases of milled rice and fish output. Combined with support for crop production and processing, support to exports has led to increases in the export of cashew and pineapple.

For the past 18 years, Bolivia has been developing a strategy to improve agricultural production and marketing through the productive alliances model. This model links small rural producers with markets, and facilitates their participation in value chains, and access to technical assistance and technology for better market access. Currently, over 2,600 productive alliances have been implemented, benefiting 107,308 producer families. In 2023, the third phase of productive alliances model was launched, expecting to have a significant impact on nearly 130, 000 rural producer’s communities, with a focus on food security, adoption of innovative practices for resilient agriculture and the increased participation of women producers.

A Bank-supported project implemented in partnership with the Government of Rio Grande do Norte, one of Brazil's poorest and most violent states, has aimed to improve agricultural productivity, the quality of and access to health, public security, education and public sector management across the state. The project has implemented 131 subprojects in family farming, renovated 274km of roads, renovated and strengthened the safety of an important dam, and built 22 modern, multi-service Citizen Centers.

In Bhutan,  a project  is supporting the government's efforts to reduce rural poverty and malnutrition through climate-smart agriculture. Irrigation technology and greenhouses introduced through the project have helped farmers to increase their access to local and export markets. More than 6,500 people have increased the quality and quantity of produce like rice, maize, potato, vegetables, quinoa, citrus, apples, and potatoes, as well as high-value spices such as cardamom and ginger. 

In Burkina Faso, the Bank supported the Burkina Faso Livestock Sector Development Project which ran from 2017 to 2022. By project completion, beneficiaries among selected value chains increased their yield by 8.4%. Yield increase for cattle, sheep, and egg production reached 6.76%, 11.93%, and 6.50%, respectively. Sales increased by 45% exceeding the target of a 30% increase. The volume of loans granted by partner financial institutions reached $5.02 million, exceeding the original target of $4.38 million. The project reached a total of 329,000 beneficiaries, out of which 138,314 were women and 112,573 were youth.

In the Central African Republic, through the Emergency Food Security Response project, 330,000 smallholder farmers received seeds, farming tools, and training in agricultural and post-harvest techniques. The project helped farmers boost their crop production and become more resilient to climate and conflict risks. Local food production increased by 250%, from 28,000 tons in September 2022 to 73,000 tons in June 2023. Moreover, 21,006 agricultural households received training on post-harvest loss management and provided equipment, such as mobile storage units, to enhance packaging of agricultural products, leading to higher selling prices.

In  Colombia, since 2010, the adoption of environmentally friendly silvopastoral production systems  (SPS) for over 4,100 cattle ranches has converted 100,522 hectares of degraded pastures into more productive landscapes and captured 1,565,026 tons of CO2 equivalent. In addition, almost 40,000 hectares of pastureland were transformed to SPS and 4,640 hectares into intensive Silvopastoral Production Systems (iSPS). Moreover, 4,100 direct farmers beneficiaries, of which 17% were women, were trained in SPS and iSPS, and over 21,000 farmers, technicians and producers were also trained, visited demonstration farms, and participated in workshops and events and technology brigades. A network of 116 plant nurseries were also established, which produced around 3.1 million fodder trees that were delivered to beneficiary farmers. 

In Cote d’Ivoire, between 2013 and 2017, the Agriculture Sector Project  boosted the productivity of 200,000 farmers and rehabilitated 6,500 kilometers of rural roads allowing farmers to better transport their products  and reduce post-harvest losses. To aid the cashew industry, the Bank also supported a research program that helped disseminate 209 genotypes of high-performing trees and establish 18 nurseries. The Bank-financed project also helped leverage $27.5 million in private investment to boost productivity on at least 26,500 hectares.

In Ethiopia, since 2015 a project has helped 2.5 million smallholder farmers increase agricultural productivity and commercialization by establishing market linkages, increasing access to agricultural public services, building smallholder farmer capacity in efficient water and crop management to implement climate change mitigation and adaptation, and improving diet diversification. The project has also been promoting the use of nutrition sensitive agriculture and gender and climate-smart agriculture including dietary diversity through nutrient-dense crops, livestock products, post-harvest processing/handling and social behavioral change communication, along with food safety and child and maternal health. The project has supported farmers increase yield in crops and livestock by 19% and 52% respectively and their revenue by 96.2%. To date the project has also provided 58,823 hectares of land with irrigation and water related services, and over 1.6 million farmers have adopted improved agriculture technologies promoted by the project. Nearly one million jobs for rural people, including for women and youth in fragile and conflict affected areas have been created as a result of the project interventions.

In Grenada , the World Bank supported local farmers and fisherfolk, along with aggregators and agro-processors to enhance their access to markets and sales from 2017 to 2023 through the OECS Regional Agriculture Competitiveness Project. The project provided vouchers to 206 farmers and fisherfolk and offered co-financing opportunities for 10 agro-processors, leading to significant improvements in their production facilities and market access. Additionally, 260 employees and 53 extension workers received training, improving their skills in agricultural production and market reach. Through the project, 150 producers adopted various climate-smart technologies, such as solar panels and rainwater harvesting systems, underscoring the project's dedication to sustainability and efficiency.

In Guinea, from 2018 to 2023, through the  Guinea Integrated Agricultural Development Project , local farmers increased agriculture's productivity, and sustainability. To help local communities, the project disseminated high-yielding seeds, improve irrigation, and trained women and youth to access funds to create jobs. The project also promoted the use of climate-smart, gender-sensitive digital technologies with local producers. The project has reached 149,000 farmers (of whom 38% are women and 30% are youth). The project’s results include a 30% increase in yield of rice and maize; a 42% increase in commodity sales; a 47,470-hectare area covered by improved technologies; over 97,000 users of improved technologies, and more than 2,000 jobs created for women and youth.

In Haiti , a World Bank project strengthened the institutional capacity of Haiti’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development by accessing technologies to increase not only agricultural productivity and production but also improved livelihoods and resilience. The project developed irrigation and drainage on 2,244 hectares; established 115 farmer field schools, and trained facilitators in agricultural extension techniques. A total of 78,242 small producers increased their market access, half of whom were women; more than 3,368 private and public sector staff (including staff from the Ministry of Agriculture, municipal staff, among others) and 600 farmers were trained on surveillance and vaccination, the use of fruit fly traps, mealybugs control, and protection of animals against rabies and anthrax and more than 3.6 million animals were vaccinated.

In Honduras, since 2010 , 12,878 small farmers, of which 27% are women, have used productive alliances to improve productivity and access to markets, which has leveraged $33.5 million in finance from commercial banks and microfinance institutions. Under the project, gross sales of producer organizations rose by 25.3%. Also, support to Honduras’ Dry Corridor Alliance, has helped 12,202 households implement food security and agricultural business plans, and improved agricultural yields, nutrition, and food diversity of project beneficiaries.

In India, the  Assam Agribusiness and Rural Transformation Project  supported over 400,000 farm families and 1,270 businesses and over 100 of industry associations and producer organizations in improving their productivity and incomes and helping develop new marketing channels since 2017.

In  Kenya, since 2016,   1.5 million farmers , where over 60% are women, have increased their productivity , climate resilience and access to markets. The digital registry (including geo tagging) of these 1.5 million farmers enables them to access agro-weather and market advisories. In addition, the Bank is facilitating partnerships between the government and 26 ag-tech support agencies which enables almost 500,000 farmers to access a range of services (inputs, financial services and markets) by leveraging digital technologies.  

In Kosovo , the Bank provided 775 grants to farmers and 103 grants to agri-processors to increase production capacities and enhance market competitiveness in the livestock and horticulture sector. This was done through upgrading facilities, adopting new technologies, and introducing food safety and environmental standards. Further, support was provided for the rehabilitation of irrigation schemes covering an area of 7,750 hectares which had an impact on the production, yield, quality, and variety of products cultivated in the area.

In the Kyrgyz Republic, the Additional Financing to the Integrated Dairy Productivity Improvement Project is improving productivity through better technologies and breeds of dairy animals rather than increasing their numbers. The project provides training, artificial insemination services, and monitoring milk yields per cow and the quality of milk to processing companies. To date, 10,000 small farmers including 5,000 women farmers, have received training to enhance productivity and climate-smart agriculture. Over 13,000 cows received artificial insemination for breed improvement with positive pregnancy rate of 67.3% which is above the global average. With improved breeds of dairy animals, the market value of the crossbred calves is higher than local calves and the average milk yield per cow has increased by nearly 15%. The project has also established a digital tool to monitor milk quality which is being used by eight dairy processing companies. The project established 30 milk collection points through famers’ Jamaats that are equipped with refrigerated tanks and advanced testing equipment, strategically located to ensure consistent milk quality and timely delivery, especially during hot summers.

In Madagascar, since 2016 , the Bank has boosted the productivity of over 130,000 farmers. Sixty-thousand hectares of irrigated rice fields have been rehabilitated. The Bank also supported the cocoa sector through research, the development of certified seeds, and promotion of improved production and processing techniques. This allowed 4,000 cocoa producers to increase their incomes and increase production and export volumes by 50%. The Bank also financed the country’s largest land rights registration, facilitating the delivery of over 200,000 land certificates to farmers. 

In Mauritania, between 2016 and 2021, the intervention of the Sahel regional support project offered agricultural assets and services to more than 400,000 farmers/pastoralists, where nearly 30% are women. More than 1.9 million hectares of land under sustainable management practices, in addition to the construction of 133 vaccination parks and the realization of 118 water points (wells and boreholes) as well as other infrastructure of valorization and trade of animals were provided to agro-pastoralist communities. Additionally, from April 2023- June 2028, the Bank offered to support the  Agriculture Development and Innovation Support Project (PADISAM)  to improve land resources management and foster inclusive and sustainable commercial agriculture in selected areas of Mauritania. It is anticipated that by the end of the project, there will be 72,000 direct beneficiaries and about 5,000 Ha of land under sustainable landscape management practices.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting spikes in wheat prices in 2022, the World Bank provided emergency support to several countries in the Middle East and North Africa to mitigate the negative socio-economic consequences on the poor and vulnerable. These emergency projects secured access to affordable bread for over 89 million people across the region. In Lebanon, a project ($150 million) has been financing wheat imports that supports universal access to affordable Arabic bread for over a year to 5.36 million people living in Lebanon, of which 1 million are Syrian, Palestinian, and other refugees. In Egypt, a project helped procure around 1.15 million metric tons of wheat – equivalent to at least a 2-month supply to cover the needs of 72 million vulnerable people. A project in In Tunisia procured 160,099 metric tons of soft wheat, equivalent to seven weeks of bread supply for a population of 12 million.

In Moldova, since 2012 , the Bank has helped more than 7,500 farmers gain access to local and regional high-value markets for fresh fruit and vegetables and boosted land productivity through the promotion of sustainable land management practices on 120,000 hectares of farmland.

In  Montenegro , the bank, through the Second Institutional Development and Agriculture Strengthening (MIDAS2), helped the government launch the very first Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance for Agriculture and Rural Development (IPARD)-like agro-environmental measure in a manner compliant with EU requirements, increasing the amount of meadows and pasture lands recorded in the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) from 13,600 hectares (ha) to 92,000 ha. The Bank has also supported almost 4,000 farmers working on orchards, vineyards, livestock and aromatic plants, 224 agro-processors, and 59 farmers working on processing on-farm complying with the European Union requirements for food safety and 278 agricultural households adopting agro-environmental measures, improving their competitiveness and sustainability.

In Morocco , the Strengthening Agri-food Value Chains Program for Results has financed the construction of the first modern regional wholesale market in Rabat, which will improve the distribution of agricultural products throughout the region, benefiting more than 4.6 million inhabitants. The program also financed the establishment of the male sterile Ceratite production center, which will enable citrus producers in the Souss-Massa and Berkane regions, which represent 52% of national citrus production and generate about 6 million working days per year, to protect their production from damage caused by the Mediterranean fruit fly. The program also enabled more than 1,000 agri-food SMEs to obtain sanitary approval after upgrading, leading to an increase in employment by almost 61%. The program co-financed more than 70 units of packaging, cold storage and processing, which leveraged about US$86 million as private investment and led to an overall increase in production value of around 34%.

In Niger , through  the Climate Smart Agriculture Support Project , the World Bank supported over 370,000 farmers, where 145,000 of whom are women. The farmers benefited from the project’s investments in small and large-scale irrigation, improved climate-smart agriculture, and sustainable land management practices. Over 154,000 hectares of land were developed with sustainable land management practices, and 4,400 hectares of cropland were brought under irrigation. In collaboration with the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics and FAO, the project promoted good agriculture practices through farmer led e-extension services and technical assistance. The project investments led to significant increases in agriculture productivity: yields of cowpea, millet, and sorghum increased by 169, 164, and 142 percent, respectively. The project also strengthened the national climate information system by building the capacity of the National Meteorology Department (the project installed 30 meteorological stations and 600 rain gauges). Through its support to the Sahel Regional Center for Hydro and Agrometeorology, the project strengthened the early warning systems of national institutes such as National Meteorology and the National Hydrology Directorate.

In Nigeria,  APPEALS Project   was designed to enhance agricultural productivity of small and medium scale farmers and improve value addition along priority value chains. Since 2017, the project has demonstrated 204 improved technologies to 93,000 farmers. Food crop production has surged, with 304,516 metric tons produced, representing 3.1% of the national output. Furthermore, the project has reached 61,171 farmers with processing assets to improve the quality of their produce. The project also trained 10,346 women and youth, including persons with disability, providing them with business, technical and life skills training, support to business planning and facilitation of business name registration, start-up grant to establish a commercially viable business, and mentorship to provide the beneficiaries with continued support from established agribusiness entrepreneurs. The project linked farmers to market through the facilitation of commercial partnerships resulting in a total of 327 business alliances with 147 off-takers already buying farmers’ produce across the 11 value chains, with a transaction worth of US$ 59.7 million. Similarly, the project has linked 200 agribusiness clusters to infrastructures which includes 55km rural farm access road, 75 aggregation and cottage processing centers, 102 solar-powered water intervention and energy supplies.

In Paraguay, since 2008, 20,863 farmers  increased their agricultural income by at least 30% and 18,951 adopted improved agricultural practices, boosting the productivity of their land.

In the  Philippines, since 2015 , the Bank helped raise rural incomes, enhance farm and fishery productivity, improve market access and mainstream institutional and operational reforms, as well as science-based planning for agricultural commodities in 81 provinces. The project has benefitted a total of 323,501 people–46% of them women–with farm roads, irrigation, and agricultural enterprise projects, boosting incomes by up to 36%. 

In  Rwanda, since  2010, the Bank helped support over 410,000 farmers – half are women – in improving their agricultural production by developing over 7,400 hectares for marshland irrigation, providing hillside irrigation on over 2,500 hectares, and several hundreds of farmers benefitted matching grants to support their investments in Farmer-Led Irrigation Development (FLID) technologies on over 1,200 hectares of their land. Interventions also included improving soil conservation and erosion on more than 39,000 hectares of hillside. Maize, rice, beans, and potato yields have all more than doubled and around 2.5 tons of vegetables are exported to Europe and the Middle-East every week from intervention areas, or locally, where more horticulture produce is sold to premium markets including 5-star hotels or the national airline, RwandAir. Less than two years after  one of the Bank supported projects  introduced greenhouse farming in its intervention areas to minimize the impacts of unfavorable weather conditions and better manage crop pests and diseases, by 2023, the demand for these technologies has seen a rapid increase in these areas and 132 units have been acquired and installed through the matching grants program under the project. Evidence shows relatively high revenues for farmers investing in greenhouse technology, with revenues increasing up to 15 times for vegetable growers.

Since 2019, the ongoing Serbia Competitive Agriculture Project has been supporting the government economic diversification and competitiveness agenda for small and medium scale farmers and their participation in a more market-oriented agriculture sector. The productive alliance model supported by the project has contributed to the improvement of the agri-food market linkages of 823 farmers, of which 330 are women farmers. Through the project, 4,356 farmers have received technical assistance to prepare their business ideas and plans (1,307 are women), while 1,319 business plans have received support in various forms, such as matching grants, technical assistance, and business development support. The farmers have signed their loans with commercial banks to invest in farm innovations, including equipment, on-farm irrigation, digital agriculture, climate-smart agriculture technologies. By providing co-financing with EUR 24.17 million in matching grants, the project-supported business plans have leveraged an additional EUR 24.17 million in private capital so far, including commercial loans to farmers at market interest rate from 11 local banks, and cash contributions from the beneficiary farmers. Amongst them, 1,117 beneficiary farmers are first-time users of credit.

In  Tajikistan , the Bank supported the establishment of 545 farmer groups in horticulture value chains, specifically apricot, apple, pear, lemon, cucumber, and tomato, and dairy value chain benefiting a total of 13,516 farmers out of which 48% were women. The Bank also supported the establishment of 342 productive partnerships benefitting 4,340 smallholder farmers. A total of 21,882 beneficiaries achieved an increase in commercial activity. The project supported training for 13, 516 farmers, on value chain development.

In  Tunisia, the Bank helped 113 remote rural villages improve  land management practices on 37,000 hectares of land to increase productivity and improve 930 kilometers of rural roads serving some 160 villages. 

In  Uruguay, since 2014, climate-smart agriculture techniques  have been adopted on 2.7 million hectares and adopted by 5,541 farmers, providing for a carbon sequestration potential of up to 9 million tons of CO2 annually.

In Uganda, since 2015 , the  Agriculture Cluster Development Project’s e-voucher scheme has leveraged over $12 million of farmer investments enabling over 450,000 farm households access and use improved agro-inputs resulting in higher farm yields. Provision of matching grants has enhanced storage capacity by 55,000MT, acquiring value addition equipment and machinery thereby facilitating Producer Organizations to add value and undertake collective marketing. Additional infrastructure support addressing road chokes has also led to improved market access.

The Bank has also made investments into strengthening regulatory and administrative functions of the Ministry of Agriculture through the development of IT Platforms and tools facilitating timely planning and decision making.

In the Uganda Multi-Sectoral Food and Nutrition Security Project, the Bank has supported enhanced knowledge on nutrition resulting in improved household nutrition and incomes for 1.55 million direct project beneficiaries.

In Uzbekistan, the Horticulture Development Project has helped create, 34,520 jobs, including 13,124 for women; increase beneficiary productivity by 24% and profitability by 124%, including through entry into new export markets. The  Livestock Sector Development Project  supported a sub-loans benefitting 560 large scale commercial livestock farmers, and a total of 135 value chain development projects benefiting 1,456 smallholder farmers (Dekhans). As a result, the share of improved and high yielding livestock breeds increased by 98.7%; increasing milk and meat productivity by 33% and 38% respectively. The Ferghana Valley Rural Enterprise Project has supported the establishment and operation of nine business incubation hubs in Andijan, Namangan, and Ferghana regions, to support local entrepreneurs in business plan preparation, and facilitated access to finance, technology infusion, also organized training among 5,000 project initiators in 36 districts of Ferghana Valley. The project, under its credit line activities, financed a total of 501 investment sub-projects with $119.6 million of the project fund, of which 77.8% were for small business entrepreneurs This created substantial number of new jobs, and increased the incomes of rural enterprises,

In Vietnam, since 2010, the Bank has promoted sustainable livelihoods by helping develop 9,000 “common interest groups” comprising over 15,500 households and partnering them with agricultural enterprises. The Bank also helped  over 20,000 farmers  improve their livestock production and benefited an additional 130,000 people through capacity building in food safety. 

Under the  West African Agricultural Productivity Program , the Bank supported a research and development effort that promoted technology generation, dissemination, and support to local farming systems in 13  ECOWAS  countries. The project reached over 2.7 million beneficiaries, 41% of whom were women. It also generated 112 technologies that reached over 1,850,000 hectares.

The Yemen Food Security Response and Resilience Project has directly benefited over 1 million beneficiaries to date. The project is focusing on resilience building amidst protracted crisis – including conflict, insecurity, and climate-related shocks. The project has created around 20,000 short-term jobs and benefited over 50,000 smallholder farm households through various agricultural infrastructure improvements. The project invested in the vaccination of 11 million small ruminants and treated a similar number for parasites. In addition to building resilience, as a short-term response, the project supported 20,000 vulnerable households with kitchen gardens and livestock kits, business development training and start-up grants to vulnerable women. Furthermore, the project facilitated a supplemental feeding program for over 740,000 most vulnerable beneficiaries.

Last Updated: Apr 09, 2024

The World Bank works with a range of partners to achieve ambitious development goals: transforming food systems, boosting food security and empowering smallholder farmers, to realize zero hunger and poverty by 2030. 

The World Bank Group is a joint convener, with the G7 Presidency, of the Global Alliance for Food Security (GAFS) . A key outcome of the Global Alliance is the  Global Food and Nutrition Security Dashboard , a key tool to fast-track a rapid response to the unfolding global food security crisis, designed to consolidate and present up-to-date data on food crisis severity, track global food security financing, and make available global and country-level research and analysis to improve coordination of the policy and financial response to the crisis.

The Bank hosts a  Multi-Donor Trust Fund,  Food Systems 2030 , that helps countries build better food systems, fostering healthy people, a healthy planet and healthy economies. The Trust Fund aims to deliver improved livelihoods and affordable, and nutritious diets for all, and progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals of zero poverty and hunger by 2030 and the climate goals of the Paris Agreement. Food Systems 2030 provides advice and analytical products to underpin policy options, funds to pilot innovative approaches, and information to build support for change in different country contexts. It engages with the private sector by supporting the design, piloting and de-risking of innovative public-private partnerships that advance development and climate goals.   

The  Global Agriculture and Food Security Program , a multilateral financing platform, is dedicated to improving food and nutrition security worldwide. Launched by the  G20 in the wake of the global response to the 2007–08 food price crisis, GAFSP works to build sustainable and resilient agriculture and food systems in the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries. Since its inception in 2010, the Program has mobilized more than US$2 billion in donor funds to reach more than 16.6 million people. GAFSP provides financial and technical resources – investment grants, technical assistance, concessional finance, and advisory services – to demand-driven projects along the food chain to accelerate the transformation of food systems at scale.

The World Bank leads the  Food Systems, Land use and Restoration Global Platform (FOLUR) , financed by the Global Environment Facility, in partnership with UNDP, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Global Landscapes Forum and the Food and Land-use Coalition. FOLUR is a $345 million, seven-year program that aims to improve the health and sustainability of landscapes that produce the world’s food. FOLUR targets sustainable production landscapes in 27 country projects for eight major commodities (livestock, cocoa, coffee, maize, palm oil, rice, soy, and wheat).

The World Bank chairs the System Council of  CGIAR , a global partnership that advances cutting-edge science to reduce rural poverty, increase food security, improve human health and nutrition, and ensure sustainable management of natural resources.

For more information, contact Clare Murphy-McGreevey on [email protected].

Last Updated: Sep 19, 2023

AROUND THE BANK GROUP

Find out what the Bank Group's branches are doing on Agriculture.

STAY CONNECTED

Programs and Trust Funds

CGIAR Global Agricultural Research

CGIAR advances cutting-edge science to reduce rural poverty, increase food security, improve human health and nutrition, and ensure the sustainable management of natural resources.

Food Systems 2030

Food Systems 2030 is an Umbrella Multi-Donor Trust Fund that helps countries build better food systems by 2030. Food Systems 2030 helps countries rethink and transform their food systems from farm to fork, progressing ...

Global Agriculture and Food Security Program

The Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) finances investments that increase incomes and improve food and nutrition security in developing countries.

Additional Resources

Media inquiries.

This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here .

• Frontiers in Climate
• Climate Adaptation
• Research Topics

Climate Change Effects on Agriculture and Food Security

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

Climate change poses significant long-term risks to food and nutritional security. Extreme temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, and drought caused by climate change can reduce agricultural productivity by decreasing crop water and nutrient use efficiency. Warmer air temperatures, which lengthen ...

Keywords : Agriculture, food security, extreme temperatures, growing season, crop yields, food production, conservation, climate-smart agriculture, micro-irrigation, water-saving technologies, diversifying crops

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, recent articles, submission deadlines.

Participating Journals

Manuscripts can be submitted to this Research Topic via the following journals:

total views

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies

A journal of the French National Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment (INRAE)

• The journal covers; production, agricultural markets and trade, agricultural and food industry production, food consumption, the environment, natural resources, rural areas and land use.
• Accepts theoretical and empirical research in English, with sociology papers accepted in French or English, but ultimately published in English.
• Encourages submissions of replication of empirical results in relevant fields.
• Features 'News and views' papers, expressing authors' positions on major political and/or scientific issues in 4000-5000 words.
• Previously known as Cahiers d’Economie et de Sociologie Rurales, Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement.
• Indexed in Journal of Economic Literature and REPEC.

This is a transformative journal , you may have access to funding.

• Alban Thomas,
• Romain Melot

Societies and partnerships

Latest issue

Volume 105, Issue 1

Special Issue on 'The Politics of Decarbonisation’

Latest articles

Multi-risk management in ghana's agricultural sector: strategies, actors, and conceptual shifts—a review.

• Jeannette Aduhene-Chinbuah
• Clement Oppong Peprah

Start-ups to decarbonize agriculture? Empirical elucidation of the promise of ecologization

• Antoine Doré

Assessment of consumer preferences in the context of multiple labels: the case of fishery and aquaculture products

• Jean-Francois Dewals
• Sterenn Lucas
• Kilian Heutte

Impact of European egg marking system in France: empirical time series analysis between 2017 and 2022

• Jessica Bosseaux
• Kelvin Balcombe
• Philippe Aurier

Nutritional quality of food imports in Caribbean small islands. Evidence from the French West Indies

• Viola Lamani
• Sophie Drogué
• Caroline Méjean

Journal updates

Call for papers: special issue: the social sustainability of food systems: addressing the inequality-unsustainability nexus.

This special issue will build our understanding of the inequality-unsustainability nexus and will help to reconceptualise ‘social sustainability’ in the food sector as a lens and method to address this nexus. We expect contributions addressing one – or more – of the following issues:

Political-economic dynamics and mechanisms underpinning the food-system’s inequality-unsustainability nexus

The collective re-organisation of food practices towards sustainability in ways that address entrenched inequalities  

Modes of collective and public support, regulations, and social protection that ensure the durability of sustainability transitions and transformations of food systems and practices over the medium and long-term, in particular through attention to social inequality.

We welcome both theoretical and empirical contributions at various levels, encompassing the broader food and agri-food system, subsystems, or specific transition/transformation interventions. In particular, we invite submissions that engage with and discuss the inequality-unsustainability nexus by reconceptualising social sustainability as a lens and a method (see full Call for Papers).

DEADLINE : September 30 th 2024.

Explore the INRAE journals published by Springer Nature on the new portal

Please click here for the portal and an overview of the journals and new features.

News and Views articles

You will find in this section the “News and views” articles published and can freely access the content.

Green Open Access

The final publisher version of articles published in Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies will be made freely available under a .pdf format in an open archive after a period of embargo of 12 months. The whole archive of Cahiers d'économie et de sociologie rurales , Revue d'études en agriculture et environnement and Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies is available in the repositories for scientific publication REPEC, Persée, EconLit and HAL.

Click here for the RAFE's archives.

Journal information

• Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
• CAB Abstracts
• Google Scholar
• IFIS Publishing
• INIS Atomindex
• Japanese Science and Technology Agency (JST)
• OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service
• TD Net Discovery Service

Rights and permissions

Editorial policies

© L’Institut National de Recherche en Agriculture, Alimentation et Environnement (INRAE)

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.12(4); 2021 Jul

Understanding Pathways Between Agriculture, Food Systems, and Nutrition: An Evidence and Gap Map of Research Tools, Metrics, and Methods in the Last 10 Years

Thalia m sparling.

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Bloomsbury, London, UK

Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA

Howard White

Campbell Collaboration, New Delhi, India

Samuel Boakye

International Center for Evaluation and Development (ICED), Nairobi, Kenya

Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, India

Suneetha Kadiyala

Associated data.

New tools, metrics, and methods in agriculture, food systems, and nutrition (A&N) research proliferated in the decade following the 2007–2008 food price crisis. We map these developments across themes derived from conceptual A&N pathways and expert consultations. We created an interactive Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) from a systematic search of published and gray literature since 2008, following Campbell Collaboration guidelines. We retrieved over 30,000 reports from published literature databases, and individually searched 20 online repositories. We systematically screened 24,359 reports by title and/or abstract, 1577 by full report, and included 904 eligible reports. The EGM consists of rows of thematic domains and columns of types of tools, metrics, and methods, as well as extensive coding applied as filters. Each cell of the map represents research surrounding a type of tool, metric, or method within a given theme. Reports in each cell are grouped by stage of development, which expand to a corresponding bibliography. Users can filter EGM reports by various characteristics. The 4 most populated domains were: diets, nutrition, and health; primary food production; water, sanitation, and hygiene; and environment and sustainability. The 4 most common types of metrics, methods, and tools were: diet metrics; footprint analysis (especially water); technology applications; and network or Bayesian analysis. Gaps represent areas of few or no reports of innovation between 2008 and 2018. There were gaps in reports and innovations related to: power or conflicts of interest; food environments; markets; private sector engagement; food loss and waste; conflict; study design and system-level tools, metrics, and methods. The EGM is a comprehensive tool to navigate advances in measurement in A&N research: to highlight trends and gaps, conduct further synthesis and development, and prioritize the agenda for future work. This narrative synthesis accompanies the EGM, which can be found at https://www.anh-academy.org/evidence-and-gap-map .

Introduction

Agriculture, a primary source of food, income, and employment in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), has received renewed focus in the last decade since the global food price crisis in 2007–2008 ( 1 , 2 ). “Making agriculture work for nutrition”—nutrition-sensitive agriculture—climbed the international development agenda ( 3 , 4 ). With the precipitous increase in diet-related chronic diseases and the threats of climate change to diets, sustainable food systems to optimize nutrition, health, and environmental outcomes has also gained momentum ( 5–7 ).

In the last decade, progress in this field has included several key developments. Research teams mapped agriculture or food systems and nutrition linkages, highlighting multiple direct and indirect complex pathways, which led to the development of new conceptual frameworks ( 5 , 8–12 ). Researchers also set out to produce a more rigorous body of evidence using state-of-the-art methods linking agriculture, food systems, and nutrition ( 13 , 14 ). Throughout these efforts, it became clear that there were inadequate tools, methods, and metrics to study the myriad of complex and dynamic relations between agriculture-food systems and nutrition outcomes ( 15–17 ).

Those working on agriculture, food systems, and nutrition (A&N) linkages began to develop, adapt, and use novel metrics, methods, and tools, often cutting across disciplines, to investigate these pathways. This also illuminated additional pathways between agriculture or food systems and nutrition outcomes, such as food environments, environmental factors, and food safety ( 18–22 ). Although the body of evidence on nutrition-sensitive agriculture has been recently systematically reviewed ( 23 ) and the state of food systems summarized ( 24 ), a systematic, inclusive portfolio of new methods and metrics, encompassing links between agriculture or food systems and nutrition has not. It is useful to take stock of these developments in order to support the production of effective and relevant research.

The aim of this article is to identify, describe, and summarize innovation in tools, metrics, and methods that have been created and applied to understand A&N linkages since 2008 through a systematic mapping approach. To this end, we developed an Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) to describe advances in measurement. The result is an interactive map designed to facilitate access to a broad range of tools, methods, and metrics across the A&N research spectrum. The map and this synthesis highlight gaps and opportunities for future development, validation, and synthesis of tools, metrics, and methods. It can also be used to initiate collaboration and spur the interdisciplinary use of tools, metrics, and methods, and undertake prioritization within and across themes presented in the map. In turn, this can accelerate evidence-based actions to leverage agriculture and food systems for nutrition.

We undertook a systematic mapping exercise, in the form of an EGM. Since there were no existing methods designed specifically for summarizing tools, metrics, and methods, we adapted approaches for effectiveness studies. A detailed methodological protocol is published elsewhere ( 25 ), a summary of which is provided here. The key features of the map are explained below and highlighted in Box 1 .

Box 1: Main features of the EGM

• Columns of tools, metrics, and methods, by category
• Rows of thematic domains derived from conceptual frameworks
• Bubbles in each cell showing the number of reports, color coded by stage of development
• Filters (codes) that can be selected on and off, or in combination to show specific map characteristics
• Units of measurement , also available as filters, showing at what level a tool, metric, or method measures
• Setting or geographic application , also available as filters, showing where a tool, metric, or method was applied

An EGM is a comprehensive systematic synthesis and visual presentation of available evidence, or lack thereof (i.e. gaps), in fields of interest ( 26 ). For this EGM of tools, metrics, and methods, the first of its kind, we created 12 broad thematic domains (rows) informed by the prevailing A&N conceptual frameworks, pathways ( 8 , 9 , 16 , 27–30 ), expert consultations, and extensive pilot-testing of the search strategy in order to ensure that the map is feasible and user-friendly ( Supplemental Figure 1 ).  Table 1 includes the definition of food systems we used, and lists the 12 domains, with examples of the types of reports in each.

Domains of influence on the agriculture or food systems to nutrition pathway

The EGM columns represent the type of innovation in tool, metric, or method created and applied in A&N research.  Table 2 provides the definitions and categorization of tools, metrics, and methods with illustrative examples.

Categories of tools, metrics, or methods used to study the agriculture or food systems to nutrition pathway

Search strategy

We employed a comprehensive published literature search of 2 databases, Web of Science and Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau (CAB) Abstracts using electronic screening with search terms ( Supplemental Methods 1 ) ( 25 ). We also searched 20 organizational, project, and research databases for relevant gray literature, and performed backward-track citations in the bibliographies of key articles ( Supplemental Methods 2 ). We searched for reports published from 1 January, 2008 to 31 December, 2018. We chose the 10-y period based on the renewed focus on and funding for A&N research that emerged following the global food price crisis in 2007–2008.

Eligibility

The focus of this project was “innovation,” which was our most important criteria for inclusion of reports. For the purpose of this EGM, following extensive pilot testing and expert consultations ( 25 ), we adopted the following 3 criteria for innovation:

• Completely new tools, metrics, or methods that were introduced after 2008 with no previous iterations.
• Tools, metrics, or methods that existed prior to 2008 but that were significantly revised or modified since. As a “significant” change or modification can be subjective, we relied on the authors’ own assertions and explanations, and made an expert judgement collectively among the research team when unclear. For example, the Healthy Eating Index was developed in 1995, but was modified significantly after 2008. Therefore, we only include reports using versions published since 2008.
• New or novel applications of existing tools and methods. This mostly entailed applying these across disciplines. When uncertain, we again relied on the authors’ description and justification, and secondarily made a collective decision among the author group. For example, Bayesian networks (BNs) were widely used prior to 2008, but their application to decision-making for agriculture and nutrition has popularized after 2008, and thus these applications were included.

Study types that demonstrated new innovations or novel applications could include a new study design, standard study designs using new or innovative tools, metrics, or methods, or studies specifically developing, piloting, or validating a new tool, metric, or method.

Reports were required to be written in English and had to explicitly describe a tool, metric, or method used for research. No geographic limitations were applied. Quantitative and qualitative research was included.

The majority of innovations are discrete in that they measure 1 link in the theoretical chain, but that link may not explicitly tie both ends together. For instance, dietary diversity metrics for women and children were improved for a number of reasons, especially as an outcome measure of nutrition-sensitive and agricultural interventions. The measure itself is not tied per se to agriculture. Therefore, we only included reports that were clearly related to agriculture and food systems and/or nutrition and nutrition-related health outcomes, but that were theoretically situated within 1 of the conceptual frameworks.

The prevailing conceptual frameworks include broad themes as underlying agriculture and food system determinants of human nutrition and health, such as soil health, land use, ecology, food environments, trade, food policy, and poverty. This mapping exercise thus reflects that breadth. Included reports could measure outcomes at any level: individual, household, crop, product or animal, farm or plot, community, district or subnational, national, or global.

Exclusion criteria

We excluded reviews, in vivo plant and animal studies outside the context of the agriculture-food systems-nutrition pathway, animal feeding experiments, enhancement and therapeutic nutrition, and specific dietary supplement formulations, apart from routine population-based supplementation for women and children, and reports of niche or nongeneralizable populations. We excluded any reports of innovations identified or published after the search period concluded so as not to deviate from our published protocol ( 25 ) and systematic review guidelines ( 26 ), but these will be used as index reports to inform updates to the EGM. A detailed list of exclusion criteria is provided in Supplemental Methods 3 .

Screening and study selection

All screening and coding was conducted in EPPI Reviewer 4. For title and abstract screening, 2 independent researchers, under the supervision of TS and HW, screened the first 10%, with a third researcher providing a decision in the case of disagreement. Remaining items were screened by a single researcher, with 5% randomly checked by TS. Two independent researchers double screened all full-text articles included, and all disagreements were reconciled collectively by HW, TS, and SK.

Data coding and analysis

A full coding classification and the numbers of reports with each filter code is available in Supplemental Table 1 . All included reports were double coded by TS and 1 other researcher using a predefined data extraction form. All disagreements were reconciled by TS.

Each report was coded for a primary tool, metric, or method category. Some reports described multiple tools, metrics, or methods, or a composite of tools that made up an overall method. In these cases, we chose an overarching or “primary” tool, and listed any secondary tools, metrics, or methods in the data collection form.

Since several included tools, metrics, and methods cut across the thematic domains, each report was coded with ≤3 domains, therefore the numbers presented are not additive (i.e. the total number of reports is less than the number listed when adding all domains together). For instance, new analyses for crop water footprints were numerous, and these were coded as both “food production” and “water.” If they included specific metrics on sustainability and environmental aspects, they were also coded under “ecology, sustainability, and environment.”

We coded all items on the primary measurement unit, such as individual, household, crop, regional, or global. We also coded the geographic location or setting of application, as well as the stage of development or application of innovation (see below).

We used additional coding to indicate other characteristics of the tools, metrics, or methods such as gender, technology, children, microbiome, or economics. All codes can be selected from a list of filters in the map, which will then show only reports with that code. Some of the additional characteristics used as filters (like equity) are broad and are further identified into subcategories (such as gender, occupation, or socioeconomic status), which can also be selected. For example, all reports with a women's empowerment focus, such as those using the Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI), were first coded on their thematic domains, and also given a code for “gender” within the broader code of “equity,” as well as any other specific characteristics applicable. Finally, where several reports described the same or similar tool, metric, or method, these were given a code so that all reports using that innovation can be selected using a filter on the map. An example of this would be the Dietary Inflammatory Index code, which could be selected from a list of filters to show only reports using this index ( Supplemental Table 1 ).

Stage of development of tools, metrics, and methods

We assessed each item included (tool, method, or metric) for “stage of development” in place of a risk of bias assessment in effectiveness studies. We drew on literature on epidemiological indicator development as well as stages of innovation to create 4 ordinal categories ( 34 , 35 ):

• Concept development and pilot.
• Feasibility or internal validity.
• Demonstration and testing, external validity.
• Adoption, generalizability, and widespread application.

For an expanded definition of these categories, see Supplemental Methods 4 . Singular items that described a new tool, metric, or method as it was developed or piloted early on were coded as Stage 1. Items that were presented in a content validation or similar manner were coded as Stage 2. Items that showed evidence based on relations with external variables (criterion, convergent, or discriminant validity) or application to new settings were coded as Stage 3. Several items mentioning a tool, metric, or method developed or applied in a novel way after 2008 was evidence of “widespread” application, or Stage 4 of innovation.

We coded the stage of innovation from the cumulative evidence of adoption of the tool, metric, or method at the time of the review rather than the stage of development in each report at the time of publication.

Tools, metrics, and methods with >1 corresponding report can be explored in 2 ways: through a filter code in the EGM, and in Supplemental Table 2 where all innovations are listed, with the number of reports noted for each. Tools, metrics, and methods with only 1 corresponding report can be found in “other” categories in the filters and listed in Supplementary Table 1 .

We offer a narrative synthesis of our results in this article and have constructed an interactive EGM (see HTML file). The map visualizes the number of reports in a cell, segregated by stage of development, which expands to a corresponding bibliography. Gaps represent areas of few or no reports of innovation between 2008 and 2018. Users can filter the EGM reports by various characteristics. In this article, we also provide an analysis and lists ( Supplemental Tables 1 and 2 ) of unique tools, metrics, and methods that have been identified through all included reports. In this synthesis, we offer illustrative examples to explain certain points; we urge readers to use the map to garner a more comprehensive view of tools, metrics, and methods advanced since 2008, and innovations that might be needed.

We retrieved 23,955 reports from CAB Abstracts and Web of Science. The gray literature search of 20 databases included 6324 documents from Agris and over 40,000 additional documents from United States Agency for International Development (USAID), World Bank, and the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) consortium databases. From the search hits in the gray literature, potentially relevant reports were imported into the main database for screening. After removing duplicates, we identified 24,359 items from both the published and gray literature searches for screening by title and abstract published in any language. We assessed 1577 full-text reports. Of those, 904 were eligible for inclusion and have been included in the map to date. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagram is presented in  Figure 1 .

Flow chart of reports considered in the mapping. Each gray literature website or database required a unique search strategy. A description of website strategy can be found in Supplemental Methods 2 . ANH, Agriculture, Nutrition and Health; CAB, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Types of Tools, Metrics, and Methods

The innovations that emerged from 904 reports (each assigned a single primary tool, metric, or method) ranged from new technology to new indices to the application of methods from other fields. The distribution of reports across thematic domains is shown as a simplified heatmap corresponding to the mapping framework in  Figure 2 . Columns will add up to 904 reports, but rows are not additive as there can be multiple domains coded for a single report.

Heatmap of number of reports by thematic domain (rows), against innovations in types of tools, metrics, and methods (columns). Supplemental Table 2 is a list of the number of reports for each code, and Supplemental Table 3 is a list of unique tools, metrics, and methods represented by reports.

The most common type of report described new metrics (354), followed by methods (330), especially new models and analysis techniques, and tools (220). As metrics and tools are mostly discrete and have fixed parameters, we were able to count both the number of reports and the unique tools and metrics that those reports represent. Many methods, especially models and analysis techniques, are applied in slightly different ways to a range of questions, therefore we identified similar methods, which we grouped, but may not be exactly the same. When clustering reports by the unique/similar tool, metric, or method, there were 182 new tools, followed by 128 new methods, and lastly 125 new metrics ( Supplemental Table 2 ). The number of reports, as well as unique innovations represented in multiple reports is also shown in  Table 3 .

Types of tools, metrics, and methods used to study agriculture, food systems, and nutrition pathways that are represented in the Evidence and Gap Map

Reports highlighting new metrics were mostly in the domains of diets, food production and food security, and ecology, sustainability, and environment. Scores, scales, and indices were introduced, with and without validation, for both general purposes and within specific study settings. Metrics with the most numerous reports were the new WHO Infant and Young Child Feeding Indicators (93 reports), the Healthy Eating Index (38 reports), and the WEAI (36 reports), which each have a filter code in the map.

The biggest groups of methods were specific analytical approaches and models, especially water footprint analysis using the Water Footprint Network's methods ( 36 ), Life Cycle Impact Analysis, Agricultural Sector Risk Assessments, and Land Governance Assessment Frameworks (a count of those mentioned can be found in Supplemental Table 2 , and as filters on the EGM). New models and algorithms on complex systems were advanced, especially the novel application of BN analysis (by far the most prevalent), probabilistic models, Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), systems theory, path analysis, stochastic modeling, and others. These modeling methods were used across the board to describe and quantify complexity in the agricultural, food systems, or nutrition space. Some of these modeling methods and tools were used in the most traditional statistical sense, and some of the models were used as qualitative or mixed-method decision and consensus tools with multistakeholder partnerships or members of a community. There were 62 reports describing new decision support tools, which is available as a filter code in the interactive map (also listed in Supplemental Table 1 ). There were only 7 new research designs identified.

The most innovation in tools was in technology measures and applications. New mobile applications, software, or programs comprised the largest group of technology tools. Genetic sequencing, also called metabarcoding, gained momentum as a new method in the agriculture-nutrition space. Sequencing techniques were used to improve rigor in studies of diversity, whether in water, soil, livestock, or fisheries. Geospatial applications were common, both as a primary and secondary tool. There were a group of reports that described advances in biochemical assessments for food safety, particularly ones that developed new tests (assays, rapid diagnostics, and chromatography) to detect antibiotic residues in water and food. New instruments, devices, and visual aids were represented in many reports, but less than the other categories. Of the 54 reports describing new survey and research tools, only 9 of these were qualitative ( Table 3 ). Each of these groups can be filtered and further explored in the map.

Thematic domains

Figure 3 shows the total number of reports coded on each domain on the periphery of the circle. The unconnected “mounds” show the proportion of reports coded only on that single domain. For instance, many dietary metrics are discrete measures, and therefore are unconnected to other domains. Chords represent the number of reports that are coded on 2 connected domains, such as crop water footprint assessments (WFAs), whose characteristics are inherently about “water” as well as “primary food production.” A decision tool for policymaking on food safety risks would contribute to the chord connecting “food safety” and “governance, food, and trade policy.” The most common thematic domain by number of reports was diets, nutrition, and health, followed by: primary food production; water, sanitation, and hygiene; and ecology, sustainability, and environment. Further visualization can be seen in the EGM.

Chord diagram of thematic domains within agriculture, food systems, and nutrition pathways: total reports coded on each domain (listed on the periphery), the number of reports with only a single domain are unconnected to others in mounds, and reports linking to a second domain are shown in chords sized proportionally to the number of reports connecting the 2 domains.

Diets, nutrition, and health

We identified a plethora of diet and nutrition tools, metrics, and methods, especially healthy diets (95 reports), food insecurity and dietary diversity (84 reports), and micronutrients (41 reports), among others. There were many reports describing new metrics and methods specifically for children and adolescents, especially to measure their diets. The WHO published new standard versions of Infant and Young Child Feeding (IYCF) indicators in 2008 ( 37 ), so reports using these were included. Advances were also made in web-based programs, mobile applications, software, and nutrition modeling. Although there were the most reports in the thematic domain of diet, nutrition, and health, there were fewer unique tools because many reports describe the same metric or tool: 66 individual new dietary metrics were identified within the 383 reports in this domain. Within this subdomain, there are many filters available in the interactive EGM for groups and individual tools, metrics, and methods (such as the Optifood tool). The number of reports on each of these aspects can also be found in Supplemental Table 2 .

There were almost no new tools, metrics, or methods designed for impact-level nutrition and development assessment such as anthropometry or biomarkers of nutrients—most new tools and metrics were diet related. Very few or no new tools, metrics, and methods were developed for nutrition knowledge, attitudes, and practices, other diet-related health outcomes, social nutrition, and sociocultural aspects of diets and health, or eating behaviors.

Primary food production

Primary food production was the second largest domain by number of reports ( Figure 3 ). New methods for considering crops and yields was mostly made up of WFAs. One hundred and eighteen reports were categorized under both the primary food production and water domains. Soil quality indicators and assessment methodologies were also common, especially due to the increasing use of genetic sequencing to determine the microbiome of soil under different practices or land use. For example, of the 34 reports assessing the microbiome of various things (gut, feces, aquaculture ponds, breastmilk, etc.), 23 of them were focused on soil.

Animal husbandry and aquaculture were themes with many new tools, metrics, and methods. The WEAI, was widely adopted in the last decade, as shown by 36 reports employing it from all over the world (available as a filter in the map within “Equity” and in Supplemental Table 2 ). The WEAI was also coded as “primary food production” because it specifically measures empowerment of women engaged in agricultural livelihoods. Land use metrics, including land governance assessment and climate-smart agriculture frameworks were newly developed and adopted, primarily by the World Bank.

There were few new tools that emerged to study yields, nutritional value of crops, or postharvest loss, farm-level vulnerability, or agroforestry, as examples. There were no new tools, metrics, or methods that we identified to measure crop yields in households or small-holder farms. Nutritional functional diversity was used in several ways—at a national scale, as well as linking family farms to micronutrient status of individuals, which revealed interesting relations, but it was not widely adopted ( 38 ).

Water, sanitation, and hygiene

WFA methodologies represented by far the most innovation and uptake, which were applied to individual crops, water points, supply chains, cities, districts, nations, and global trade. Life cycle impact assessments were also redesigned to capture multifaceted aspects (especially environment, sustainability, cost, and benefit/utility) of single crops, systems, or value chains, in which often were nested WFAs. There were many reports of new discrete metrics of water insecurity and stress, which were often included as part of a WFA.

There were no tools, metrics, or methods on sanitation or hygiene, except for the development of several household-level water insecurity scales or indices. Water insecurity indices were developed as an accompaniment to food insecurity indices and are being widely adopted. Some new methods and metrics for irrigation and water quality emerged.

Other thematic domains

“Ecology, sustainability, and the environment” was a thematic domain of 174 of the new tools, methods and metrics. Some of these were because water footprints included explicit ecological aspects (65 reports were coded also with the water domain), but there were also innovations in how to measure aspects of climate change, land use, biodiversity, and others in relation to agriculture-nutrition pathways. Of the reports falling under the theme of ecology, sustainability, and the environment, there were 117 reports that shared the primary food production domain.

There were 84 reports on governance, food, and trade policy (mostly as a secondary domain code), but many gaps within this category still exist, especially systems- and macro-level tools, metrics, or methods. This is also the case with food transformation and value chains, which are also related to markets and trade. Almost no tools and metrics explicitly for nutrition value chains were identified, although 1 conceptual framework was identified ( 39 ). Food security as a domain had 47 reports, which accounted for 10 new metrics. This is most likely due to widely accepted global indices such as the Food Insecurity Experiences Scale (FIES) and the Household Hunger Score (HHS) (validated and published after 1 January, 2008), and the Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS), which was not included in the map as it did not qualify as “new.”

Food environments, markets, and food safety domains had relatively few reports of new tools, metrics, or methods. New tools, metrics, and methods for analyzing food environments were mostly used in high-income countries. However, the Nutrition Environment Measures Survey short version (NEMS-S) was adapted and validated in Brazil ( 40 ), and spatial-temporal BNs and geospatial analysis were adapted to measure food environments in LMICs ( 41–45 ). Just a few new indices and tools were designed for markets and economy, such as the Cost of Diet tool ( 46 , 47 ), the Cost of Dietary Diversity, and the Cost of Nutrient Adequacy indices ( 48 ), which were also included in the diet and nutrition domain.

There were 9 reports relating to power or conflict of interest in the food system as a thematic domain. These reports described a single method, the Land Governance Assessment Framework, which includes a specific focus on trade-offs and assessment of power dynamics.

Measurement units

In  Figure 4 , the measurement unit of reports (outer ring) is shown proportional to the type of tool, metric, or method (middle ring) for the 3 largest domains (inner ring: diets, nutrition, and health, primary food production, and water, sanitation, and hygiene). Tools, metrics, and methods were designed to use data collected at every level, ranging from a human individual, to crops, products, units of water, animals, factories, schools, river basins, geographic areas, entire nations, and global networks. For instance, in the section on water, sanitation, and hygiene, the majority of innovation is in methods, which are largely measured at the crop or district level. Far more underrepresented are those used for midlevel and macro measurement, or tools, metrics, or methods for measuring system-level interactions, such as those in communities, nations as a whole, and across global networks. Some tools, metrics, and methods have predefined units of measurement in order to be viable. For instance, most dietary metrics can only be used with individual dietary data. Other tools, metrics, and methods are more flexible in the data inputs that can be used. Some methods, such as the “footprint family” require various calculations across crops, landscapes, and individuals.

Proportion of reports on agriculture, food systems, and nutrition tools, metrics, and methods (middle ring) by measurement unit (outer ring) for the 3 largest thematic domains (inner ring).

Setting/geographic application and stage of development

Figure 5 shows the number of reports, stacked by stage of development, which can also be applied as filters in the EGM. Reports came from all over the world, but were dominated by China, European nations, Africa, and the USA. The Middle East and North Africa did not host as much innovation, and the Pacific region was almost entirely dominated by Australia and New Zealand, with few innovations emerging from or being applied to the Pacific Island nations. Very few tools, metrics, or methods were applied in Central America or the Caribbean, and in South America, the most innovation came from Brazil and Argentina. The geographic spread of reports was characterized by searching only English language databases, which is further discussed below. The majority of reports were in Stage 4, although this might be affected by publication bias, since those in widespread use will be published more often.

Number of reports describing new tools, metrics, and methods for studying agriculture, food systems, and nutrition by region, stacked by stage of development.

Crosscutting characteristics (filters in the interactive map)

Figure 6 shows the number of reports on equity, stacked by type of equity, across the thematic domains. Characteristics common to reports, or representing certain themes in the literature beyond or within the main framework (available as filters in the map) showed both proliferation and gaps in certain areas, as illustrated in  Table 4 . Tools, metrics, and methods specific to children (165 reports) and aspects of technology (160 reports) were the most common characteristics. Although there were many reports coded for the equity subdomain, the majority related to gender (just 1 aspect of equity) and many were applications of the WEAI. Other aspects of equity such as religion, occupation, age, and others were not well represented in reports.

Number of reports demonstrating aspects of equity by thematic domain in the agriculture, foods systems, and nutrition pathways.

Summary of reports with crosscutting filters

The map revealed clear areas where there were few or no innovations in reports describing private sector engagement, food loss and waste, shocks and the humanitarian context, and disabilities. There were reports related to economics, poverty, and inequality. Some assessed cost-effectiveness of nutrition-sensitive programs in novel ways, 1 through using the Cost of the Diet tool applied to fortification strategies ( 47 ), and 1 using a BN framework to determine agricultural project cost ( 49 ). However, novel direct measures and methods related to poverty and inequality were few.

Strengths, limitations, and interpretation

This is the first and the most comprehensive systematic review to date, and the first EGM, to summarize tools, metrics, or methods in A&N research. This EGM has many strengths. We employed a rigorous and thorough systematic search, screening, and coding process to minimize misclassification. We were informed by consultation with subject matter and methods experts throughout the process. There is a vast breadth of subject matter included, which can be valuable to researchers across many disciplines. Reports in the EGM are able to be filtered by topic, setting, or geographic location, type of tool, metric, or method, stage of development, and other key thematic categories. We offer a summary and analysis of both the individual reports, and the unique innovations included in the map, as well as areas where there are few or no innovations identified. The unique interactive map as a tool allows researchers to explore work and identify gaps within their domains of expertise, utilize existing methods and measures from their own and other disciplines, compare aspects and characteristics of tools, metrics, and methods, and prioritize areas for future work.

Achieving breadth and depth of the map while maintaining a rigorous and systematic process meant that searching additional databases, especially non-English language databases, was not feasible given the time, funding, and language capabilities of the research team. Optimizing the search strategy for this wide scope was challenging; yet, we still screened over 30,000 reports from 2 databases alone. Innovations from regions where English is not the official language could be underrepresented, although some English-speaking regions still have less corresponding reports, such as the Pacific. We aired on the side of inclusion and breadth, and although we followed systematic procedures, have likely reduced bias, but may not have completely eliminated it.

We summarized the number of reports that describe new or new applications of tools, metrics, and methods in the A&N space. Some reports described multiple innovative components that fit distinctly within different types of tools, metrics, or methods. Therefore, we chose the “primary” tool, metric, or method to code the item, and listed the others that were secondary. This may have resulted in certain pragmatic groupings that could be debated. Similarly, the thematic domains for the EGM were distilled from conceptual frameworks and expert consultation, but there are alternate ways of grouping these. We worked through several iterations of defining these, so that the EGM would function as a whole.

Tools, metrics, and methods with no previous iterations were straightforward to classify. However, as certain tools, metrics, and methods evolved, defining what constituted “significant” evolution was not always straightforward. Metrics are discrete and have a standard construction, and are therefore easier to identify and evaluate. New methods are harder to identify and classify, especially when attempting to discern whether a combination of older metrics and methods, or applications to new fields and subtopics, is, in fact, new or novel. In the case of uncertainty, we relied on the authors’ explanations and background or discussion sections to frame the work, conducted Google Scholar searches to establish a timeline of evolution, consulted with experts in each of the domains, and took collective decisions within the research team when necessary. This process also helped us determine the stage of development of tools, metrics, and methods.

Well-populated categories and cells on the EGM might mean that these categories are dominated by certain types of innovations, not necessarily that there are no gaps. Cells with few or no reports in them could indicate that there might be well-developed older methods, metrics, and tools to measure intended relations. Although tools, methods, or metrics introduced prior to 2008 might have been widely used (such as child length or crop yields), there could still be scope for innovation if the area of study is deemed important and there is a scientific basis for innovation. Regional gaps may also be filled by searching non-English language repositories.

We recognize that highlighting innovation could lead to overlooking these well-developed, older methods; or introduce tools, metrics, and methods that are cumbersome, complex, or overly technical for practical use. Conventional risk of bias tools are not applicable or appropriate to gauge these issues related to “quality” of tools, metrics, or methods (such as their inherent value or lack thereof, appropriate use, whether they are overly technical for practical use, etc.). Interpreting the nature and value of further innovations is beyond the scope of the review. We therefore limit our interpretation of gaps to mean few or no reports of innovation between 2008 and 2018.

Even given these limitations, the investment in measurement of complex A&N linkages came from clear evidence that existing tools, metrics, and methods were unable to capture the complexities of these pathways ( 12 ), and thus we map advances with the intent to examine progress against this articulated need. When interpreting the EGM and its results, it is important not to prioritize topics and themes only based on the number of reports in any given category, but to delve into the diversity of tools, metrics, and methods within each category.

Lastly, this EGM is truly a map: it is a tool for navigation, showing advances since 2008 and the extent of their use. It will not definitively order or prioritize either advances or gaps given the breadth of themes, disciplines, and applications of tools, metrics, and methods. It is designed, however, to catalyze and facilitate efforts by stakeholders to prioritize investment in A&N research based on their vantage points and domain expertise, and also when diverse perspectives and consensus are needed. An agronomist working on more nutritious varietals might want to also consider aspects of water and ecology. Groups interested in value chains and market dynamics might want to consider gender aspects more thoroughly. Donors may use the map to inform their strategic plans and opportunities for funding.

There may be gaps that are more pressing to fill for various reasons. For example, threats to supply chains and the increasing interconnectedness and globalization of the food system might mean that system-level tools, and those that measure the widest “arcs” of trade and economy in food will be paramount. Food safety and food environment measures have been improved as a direct response to the very real risks of rapidly changing culture and consumption, and this will continue. The increasing number of conflicts that exist at any 1 time, both acute and protracted, might mean that tools and methods to accurately measure nutrition and health impacts in these contexts might be prioritized over others. The growing concern over links between climate change and agriculture or diets could signal the importance of investing in tools, metrics, and methods to study these aspects better. The proliferation of healthy diet and sustainable diet metrics already indicates some of these changing priorities. Ultimately, however, the user will have to examine the features and contents of the EGM based on their domains of interest and expertise to advance the field meaningfully.

Conclusions

Clear trends emerged in measuring pathways between agriculture, food systems, and nutrition. There were many innovations combining measurement across domains, such as mixing and matching from water, food production, ecology, nutrition, health, and others to capture complexity and new levels of impact. There were “popular” new approaches, including new dietary metrics, food production methods, WFAs, gene sequencing, BNs, and system dynamics models. These may reflect emerging priorities to address sustainability and climate change and improve health through diets, and emerging capacities in biochemistry, computing power, rapid diagnostics, complex modeling. There were also clear gaps where no new tools, metrics, or methods either exist or have changed or been newly applied in the last decade ( Box 2 ). These included innovations in ways to measure power and conflicts of interest, food environments, governance, investment, fluid or fragile states, markets, and economy. Many more niche gaps, even in the most populated domains, were also observed ( Box 3 ). Although it is beyond the scope of this EGM to definitively or prescriptively prioritize the gaps noted, it is conceivable that as policymakers and funders undertake their risk analyses of, planning for, and response to the most serious food and nutrition threats, stakeholders will implicitly or explicitly rank gaps. If food system shocks occur, methods of capturing real-time data and learning from “natural experiments,” such as through surveillance systems, might evolve quickly. If global markets shift dramatically, the need to measure inequity and address vulnerability will be crucial.

Box 2: Key gaps in type of innovation

• Qualitative methods
• System-level tools, metrics, and methods
• Research design
• Dynamic, surveillance, ongoing and real-time research innovation
• Coproduction, participatory research
• Instruments and devices

Box 3: Key thematic gaps

• Power and conflict of interest in the food system, food industry, corporate engagement
• Food environments, food choice, and eating behavior
• Food loss and waste
• Short-term shocks, humanitarian contexts, emergencies
• Long-term vulnerability, migration, fragile states
• Food systems trade, trade-offs, and governance
• Markets and value chains for nutrition and health outcomes
• Agriculture and nutrition knowledge, attitudes and practices, norms and values
• Equity and inclusion, especially types other than gender

We imagine that the EGM will help to define key questions that remain about studying complex agriculture to nutrition pathways. It can be used as a resource to investigate developments within certain domains, types of application, or within specific research parameters. In which areas are existing methods sufficient and therefore should be the focus of research investment that does not require development of new tools, metrics, or methods? What questions remain that cannot be answered through methods and metrics that exist, and therefore should be the focus of research innovation and nontraditional investigation? This synthesis project highlights which thematic domains have been left behind in the development of new tools, metrics, and methods in the last 10 y, and what tools, metrics, and methods have been developed or applied that can be developed further and brought into widespread adoption.

One possible next step of the research is to conduct systematic reviews of specific tools, methods, or metrics where there are substantial measurement advances, with a view to producing practice-based guidelines. We will undertake stakeholder consultations to decide on expanding and updating the map, which could include automating the search strategy and further coalescing reports around their respective tools, metrics, and methods. Overall, the EGM is a navigation tool and a resource for priority setting. It can be used to avoid duplication of work, promote crossdisciplinary concepts, applications, and partnerships, and drive evidence-based investments in future agriculture, food systems, and nutrition research.

Supplementary Material

Nmaa158_supplemental_file, acknowledgements.

We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Ashrita Saran for screening and coding reports, and Francis Dompae for his work screening reports. We thank and acknowledge John Eyers who served as our search strategy expert. We thank Yashika Kanojia for supporting with research assistance. We would also like to thank the group of subject-matter experts and advisors of the IMMANA Programme who gave feedback on the framework and protocol drafts. Specifically, we thank Delia Grace, Edoardo Masset, Edward Frongillo, Jessica Fanzo, Rosemary Green, Shelly Sundberg, and Will Masters. We thank Heike Rolker and Megan Deeney for assisting with tables, figures, and supplemental materials , and Sylvia Levy for carefully reading the final manuscript.

The authors’ responsibilities were as follows—SK: is the Principal Investigator of the Innovative Methods and Metrics for Agriculture and Nutrition Actions (IMMANA) Programme and conceived the research framework, supported by HW to choose an Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) methodology; TS: worked with John Eyers, the information specialist and HW to construct the search strategy; TS with support from SK and HW: created all screening and coding tools, authored the protocol and led the screening process, assisted by DJ and Ashrita Saran; TS, HW, SK, SB, and Francis Dompae: screened titles and abstracts and conducted full-text review; TS, SK, HW, DJ, and SB: coded reports included in the final map; TS: created the map and authored the manuscript, with the editorial support of all authors; and all authors: read and approved the final manuscript.

This work was funded through the Innovative Methods and Metrics for Agriculture and Nutrition Actions (IMMANA) program; which is funded with UK aid from the UK government (UKAid) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). UKAid and BMGF had no role in the design, analysis, or writing of this article. The content of this publication is solely the responsibility of the authors.

Author disclosures: The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Supplemental Figure 1, Supplemental Methods 1, 2, 3, and 4, and Supplemental Tables 1 and 2 are available from the “Supplementary data” link in the online posting of the article and from the same link in the online table of contents at http://academic.oup.com/advances/ .

Abbreviations used: A&N, agriculture, food systems, and nutrition; BN, Bayesian network; EGM, Evidence and Gap Map; LMIC, low- and middle-income country, NEMS-S, Nutrition Environment Measures Survey short version; WEAI, Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index; WFA, water footprint assessment.

Contributor Information

Thalia M Sparling, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Bloomsbury, London, UK. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA.

Howard White, Campbell Collaboration, New Delhi, India.

Samuel Boakye, International Center for Evaluation and Development (ICED), Nairobi, Kenya.

Denny John, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, India.

Suneetha Kadiyala, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Bloomsbury, London, UK.

New to Climate Change?

Food systems and agriculture.

Food systems are the complex web of people and activities that make up the production, processing, transport , and consumption of food. The foundation of these systems is agriculture, the practice of growing crops, trees, and other plants and raising animals for food, fiber, and fuel. Food systems are affected by many challenges including climate change, rapid population growth, degradation of land and water resources, urbanization , and changing consumption patterns driven by a growing global middle class.  

Agriculture is likely to face severe impacts from climate change, 1 reducing the amount of food we can grow at a time when more is needed than ever before. The planet’s growing population and food consumption will require food production to increase by 70% by 2050. 2 At the same time, the production, storage, and transport of food causes greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to climate change.

Climate Change Impacts on Food Systems

Climate change impacts on food systems are complex and vary from place to place, affecting the poorest and most vulnerable the most. In some regions, climate change is already causing crop yields to fall. Higher temperatures , changes in precipitation patterns, and increased weeds, pests, and crop and animal disease all threaten food supply. Floods and droughts caused by climate change also threaten food production. Sea level rise will flood agricultural fields and important infrastructure, and will increase the salinity of many coastal aquifers, making them unsuitable for irrigation. Additionally, there is growing evidence that climate change will decrease the nutritional quality of many staple crops like wheat, rice, and corn. 3

Food Systems’ Impact on Climate Change

Food systems are responsible for up to 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions. 3 Agriculture contributes to these emissions in several ways. Livestock such as cattle, sheep, and goats produce methane gas during digestion and from their manure. Soils, fertilizer , and animal manure emit nitrous oxide gas. The production of rice, which is a staple food for almost half of the world population, is responsible for about 11% of all manmade methane emissions. 4 In addition, cutting down forests for new farmland and unsustainable farming practices are major sources of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions.

While most greenhouse gas emissions from food systems come from agriculture, other related factors play a role in climate change too. The production of synthetic fertilizer accounts for about 1% of global CO 2 emissions. 5 The transport, storage, processing, and packaging of food may account for as much as 5-10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. 6 Finally, almost a third of all food produced is lost or wasted. When food goes to waste, more food and greenhouse gases must be produced in order to feed the world’s population.

Published September 14, 2020.

1 Cai, X., Zhang, X., Noël, P. H. & Shafiee-Jood, M. Impacts of climate change on agricultural water management: a review. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2, 439–455 (2015). 2 Whitfield, S., Challinor, A. J. & Rees, R. M. Frontiers in Climate Smart Food Systems: Outlining the Research Space. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2, 1–5 (2018). 3 Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M. & Ingram, J. S. I. Climate Change and Food Systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 195–222 (2012). 4 P. Smith, M. Bustamante, H. Ahammad, H. Clark, H. Dong, E.A. Elsiddig, H. Haberl, R. Harper, J. House, M. Jafari, O. Masera, C. Mbow, N.H. Ravindranath, C.W. Rice, C. Robledo Abad, A. Romanovskaya, F. Sperling, F. Tubiello. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA (2014). 5 Boerner, L. K. Industrial ammonia production emits more CO2 than any other chemical-making reaction. Chemists want to change that. C&EN 97, (2019). 6 Garnett, T., Smith, P., Nicholson, W. & Finch, J. Food systems and greenhouse gas emissions (Foodsource: chapters). (2016).

More Resources for Learning

Want to learn more.

Listen to this episode of MIT's "Today I Learned: Climate" podcast on farming and climate change.

Keep exploring

With more Explainers from our library:

Soil-Based Carbon Sequestration

Fertilizer and Climate Change

MIT Climate News in Your Inbox

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Data analytics in agriculture: enhancing decision-making for crop yield optimization and sustainable practices.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. sensors selection and implementations, 2.2. data collection process, 2.3. analytical techniques used, 2.3.1. principal component analysis (pca) & biplot, 2.3.2. analyzing humidity curve, 2.4. educational collaboration with the farmers, 2.4.1. project initiation and collaboration, 2.4.2. technological implementation and farmer engagement, 3. results and discussion, 3.1. nutrient and environmental data analysis, 3.1.1. potassium and electrical conductivity association, 3.1.2. pca biplot reveals dependencies in data, 3.2. empowering farmers through educational collaboration, 4. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Stafford, J. Implementing precision agriculture in the 21st century. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 2000 , 76 , 267–275. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saiz-Rubio, V.; Rovira-Más, F. From smart farming towards agriculture 5.0: A review on crop data management. Agronomy 2020 , 10 , 207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Friha, O.; Ferrag, M.; Shu, L.; Maglaras, L.; Wang, X. Internet of Things for the Future of Smart Agriculture: A Comprehensive Survey of Emerging Technologies. IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sin. 2021 , 8 , 718–752. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Subeesh, A.; Mehta, C. Automation and digitization of agriculture using artificial intelligence and internet of things. Artif. Intell. Agric. 2021 , 5 , 278–291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lakshmi, G.; Asha, P.; Sandhya, G.; Sharma, S.; Shilpashree, S.; Subramanya, S. An intelligent IOT sensor coupled precision irrigation model for agriculture. Meas. Sens. 2023 , 25 , 100608. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Foughali, K.; Fathallah, K.; Frihida, A. Using Cloud IOT for disease prevention in precision agriculture. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018 , 130 , 575–582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Adamchuk, V.; Hummel, J.; Morgan, M.; Upadhyaya, S. On-the-go soil sensors for precision agriculture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2004 , 44 , 71–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shafi, U.; Mumtaz, R.; García-Nieto, J.; Hassan, S.; Zaidi, S.; Iqbal, N. Precision agriculture techniques and practices: From considerations to applications. Sensors 2019 , 19 , 3796. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, M.; Karada, M.S.; Rai, R.K.; Pratap, D.; Agnihotri, D.; Singh, A.K.; Singh, B.K. A Review on Remote Sensing as a Tool for Irrigation Monitoring and Management. Int. J. Enviorn. Clim. Chang. 2023 , 13 , 203–211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Radoglou-Grammatikis, P.; Sarigiannidis, P.; Lagkas, T.; Moscholios, I. A compilation of UAV applications for precision agriculture. Comput. Netw. 2020 , 172 , 107148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Macholdt, J.; Piepho, H.-P.; Honermeier, B. Mineral NPK and manure fertilisation affecting the yield stability of winter wheat: Results from a long-term field experiment. Eur. J. Agron. 2019 , 102 , 14–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weddell, B.J. Precision Agriculture. Int. J. Comput. Algorithm 2023 , 12 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, X.; Cui, Z.; Fan, M.; Vitousek, P.; Zhao, M.; Ma, W.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, W.; Yan, X.; Yang, J.; et al. Producing more grain with lower environmental costs. Nature 2014 , 514 , 486–489. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pawar, R.Y.; Deshmukh, P.B.; Metre, V.A.; Ghogardare, S.V. Improving Plant Yield by Smart Irrigation System Using pH and NPK Sensors. Sensors 2021 , 2 , 293–303. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murali, K.S.; Abhishek, R.; Neelamadhab, P. IoT-Enabled Soil Nutrient Analysis and Crop Recommendation Model for Precision Agriculture. Computers 2023 , 12 , 61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, R.; Kamble, S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, A. A systematic literature review on machine learning applications for sustainable agriculture supply chain performance. Comput. Oper. Res. 2020 , 119 , 104926. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bhakta, I.; Phadikar, S.; Majumder, K. State-of-the-art technologies in precision agriculture: A systematic review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019 , 99 , 4878–4888. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Godfray, H.C.J.; Garnett, T. Food security and sustainable intensification. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2014 , 369 , 20120273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kennedy, N. Data-Driven Farming: Key to Agri Success. Agribusiness Strategies. The Farming Insider. 2 March 2024. Available online: https://thefarminginsider.com/data-driven-agri-farming/ (accessed on 6 June 2024).
• Rozenstein, O.; Cohen, Y.; Alchanatis, V.; Behrendt, K.; Bonfil, D.; Eshel, G.; Harari, A.; Harris, W.; Klapp, I.; Laor, Y.; et al. Data-driven agriculture and sustainable farming: Friends or foes? Precis. Agric. 2024 , 25 , 520–525. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Devare, M.; Arnaud, E.; Antezana, E.; King, B. Governing agricultural data: Challenges and recommendations. In Towards Responsible Plant Data Linkage: Data Challenges for Agricultural Researchand Development ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; p. 201. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manono, B.O. New Zealand dairy farm effluent, irrigation and soil biota management for sustainability: Farmer priorities and monitoring. Cogent Food Agric. 2016 , 2 , 1221636. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amazon. Xinwoer. Available online: https://www.amazon.com/Xinwoer-Precision-Nutrient-Intelligent-Fertilizer/dp/B07ZKTK8QR (accessed on 6 June 2024).
• McCormick, A. Spring Onions—Harvst, 31 May 2017. Available online: www.harvst.co.uk/how-to-grow-spring-onions (accessed on 24 October 2023).
• Greenacre, M.; Groenen, P.J.; Hastie, T.; d’Enza, A.I.; Markos, A.; Tuzhilina, E. Principal component analysis. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 2022 , 2 , 100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gower, J.; Lubbe, S.; Le Roux, N. Understanding Biplots ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Weraikat, D.; Šorič, K.; Žagar, M.; Sokač, M. Data Analytics in Agriculture: Enhancing Decision-Making for Crop Yield Optimization and Sustainable Practices. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7331. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177331

Weraikat D, Šorič K, Žagar M, Sokač M. Data Analytics in Agriculture: Enhancing Decision-Making for Crop Yield Optimization and Sustainable Practices. Sustainability . 2024; 16(17):7331. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177331

Weraikat, Dua, Kristina Šorič, Martin Žagar, and Mateo Sokač. 2024. "Data Analytics in Agriculture: Enhancing Decision-Making for Crop Yield Optimization and Sustainable Practices" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7331. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177331

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

AgBioResearch

New msu research shows gardening improves mental, social well-being.

Cameron Rudolph <[email protected]> - August 26, 2024

Researchers observed that participating in community gardening boosts mental and social well-being through caring for plants, connecting to nature and feeling a sense of accomplishment.

EAST LANSING, Mich. — Newly published research from Michigan State University demonstrates that participating in community gardening bolsters mental and social well-being through caring for plants, connecting to nature and feeling a sense of accomplishment.

Findings were published in the journal People and Nature .

The project was led by Katherine Alaimo , a nutritional epidemiologist and associate professor in the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition . Alaimo, whose work is also supported by MSU AgBioResearch , is an expert in community-based participatory research on topics such as food justice, community food security, urban agriculture and gardening, and school nutrition and health.

Alongside Alaimo were colleagues from MSU, Wayne State University and the University of South Carolina. To conduct the study, they partnered with Denver Urban Gardens in Denver, Colorado, one of the largest independent networks of food-producing community gardens in the U.S.

In recent years, a multitude of research has shown mounting support for gardening and other nature-based activities as viable tools to boost mental and physical health. From finding purpose and joy to feelings of accomplishment, Alaimo said there are several benefits.

Her previous research uncovered that gardening increases consumption of vegetables and fiber, encourages physical activity, and lowers perceived stress and anxiety. Community gardening builds social support networks and improves physical functioning.

“Community gardening offers many positive things to participants such as encouraging healthier behaviors, improving mental and physical health, and increasing access to green spaces,” said Linda Appel Lipsius, executive director of Denver Urban Gardens. “Our study aimed to identify key aspects of gardening that are meaningful to people, help them stay involved in gardening, and contribute to their mental and social well-being.”

Alaimo said that as many chronic, noncommunicable diseases continue to rise in prevalence, the healthcare system is becoming increasingly taxed. Researchers aimed to highlight nature-based interventions that positively affect some of the leading causes of these diseases and discover ways to make the interventions accessible to a variety of groups.

“One of the most important aspects of implementing these interventions and ensuring the equity of their impact is engaging diverse populations,” Alaimo said. “This includes low-income families and immigrant communities who may not have easy access to land and other resources. It’s also important to identify how their participation can be sustained over time.”

For this project, researchers conducted qualitative interviews with 34 individuals who were new to community gardening. The participants took part in community gardening for one season.

The team explored each participant’s initial motivation to begin gardening and their previous gardening experiences. Alaimo and her team then examined the meaning of gardening to participants, how social support influenced gardening engagement, and how individuals overcame gardening challenges over the course of the season.

The researchers found there was significant fulfillment for participants in growing food and being active in their gardens. The team coined the term “the gardening triad,” which refers to three additional key elements of the gardening experience that kept participants active and had mental and social benefits:

• The responsibility and act of caring for their gardens, and forming a nurturing and loving relationship with their plants.
• Feelings of pride and a sense that they were accomplishing something important.
• Feeling connected to nature, which included appreciation, fascination and wonder.

“We were surprised to find that the gardening triad was nearly universal among the participants and that love was integrated throughout the gardening experience — love and connection with plants, self and nature,” Alaimo said.

Several of the new gardeners reported that they formed new emotional bonds with fellow participants, and their existing social relationships improved as well.

“We saw that many individuals found joy, purpose and meaning in their work, and their confidence and self-esteem was boosted, which helped them deal with mental health challenges such as depression, anxiety and stress,” said Eva Coringrato, an author on the study who was previously at Wayne State University during the research.

Alaimo believes the results show that gardening should be considered as a viable intervention on a larger scale.

“The act of gardening itself holds many benefits, but when participants gardened with others, whether that was fellow community gardeners or family or friends, those benefits were enhanced even further,” Alaimo said. “Understanding how and why gardening improves health and well-being is important, particularly when designing nature-based health programs. Based on our findings, we believe that gardening should absolutely be explored as an avenue for improving well-being and should be widely supported.”

Michigan State University AgBioResearch scientists discover dynamic solutions for food systems and the environment. More than 300 MSU faculty conduct leading-edge research on a variety of topics, from health and climate to agriculture and natural resources. Originally formed in 1888 as the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, MSU AgBioResearch oversees numerous on-campus research facilities, as well as 15 outlying centers throughout Michigan. To learn more, visit  agbioresearch.msu.edu .

Did you find this article useful?

new - method size: 3 - Random key: 2, method: personalized - key: 2

You Might Also Be Interested In

MSU researcher awarded five-year, $2.5 million grant to develop risk assessment training program

Published on October 13, 2020

MSU Product Center helps Michigan food entrepreneurs survive and thrive throughout pandemic

Published on August 31, 2021

Protecting Michigan’s environment and wildlife through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

Published on September 1, 2021

MSU Extension to undertake three-year, $7 million vaccination education effort

Published on August 17, 2021

MSU to study precision livestock farming adoption trends in U.S. swine industry

Published on March 15, 2021

MSU research team receives USDA grant to evaluate effectiveness, cost of new blueberry pest management strategies

Published on February 19, 2021

• agbioresearch
• community gardening
• department of food science and human nutrition
• featured news
• healthy relationships
• human health
• mental health
• physical activity
• plant agriculture
• agbioresearch,
• community gardening,
• department of food science and human nutrition,
• featured news,
• healthy relationships,
• human health,
• mental health,
• physical activity,
• Project GREEEN
• Michigan Alliance for Animal Agriculture
• Partnership for Ecosystem Research and Management
• Institute of Water Research

Researcher Resources

• Commodity Group RFPs
• Research Projects - REEport Forms
• Commodity Groups Granted Waiver of Indirect Costs
• Policies, Procedures and Guidelines
• Animal Agriculture Priorities
• Plant Agriculture Priorities

Office of Research Support

• Funding Opportunities

News & Publications

• MSU AgBioResearch & MSU Extension Legislative Report

share this!

August 28, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

Clearing up confusion between organic and regenerative farming could boost green agriculture

by University of Reading

Making the benefits of different types of farming plain for the public could provide better protection for the British countryside, according to a new study. Led by a team at the University of Reading, the research says greater education about sustainable agriculture in the UK is needed in order to support farmers.

This includes clearing up the confusion between "organic" and "regenerative" farming, something that has troubled farm owner and TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson on his Amazon Prime show Clarkson's Farm.

The concept of regenerative farming is gaining support with many farmers, scientists and retailers. This includes Waitrose & Partners, which in May launched a major new plan to adopt regenerative farming schemes for its whole food range, with the support of University of Reading experts.

Dr. Tom Staton, who led the research , said, "There's a lot of buzz around regenerative farming, but it's crucial to understand that 'organic' is a legally protected term. This means consumers can trust that organic produce meets specific standards, particularly regarding pesticide and manufactured fertilizer use.

"We're not knocking regenerative farming, which helps improve the health of British soil and boosts biodiversity. Regenerative farming is not regulated, however, and if we want to see real change in our food system, we need to support approaches with clear, enforceable standards."

Changing attitudes

Published today, 28 August, in Nature Communications Earth and Environment , the study used an innovative modeling approach to map out the complex web of factors influencing and hindering the uptake of organic farming in the UK. By tapping into the expertise of 18 farming experts, the researchers created a "mental model" of 55 factors driving organic adoption.

The results revealed that farmers are less concerned about the cost of growing organic veg or a lack of subsidies from the government—instead, it is the lack of long-term thinking from shoppers, landowners and policymakers about the benefits of sustainable farming that is preventing an organic revolution.

The study indicates that if people shift their priorities from purchasing cheaper, imported food to valuing quality and sustainability, it could create a more favorable environment for organic farming. This might mean being willing to pay a little bit more for food, but with a better understanding of where that extra cost goes—into soil health, biodiversity, and more sustainable farming practices associated with organic farming .

The research says that although there is no quick fix for promoting sustainable farming, initiatives aimed at changing public perception and understanding of farming's role in society could be effective in driving the transition to organic methods.

Journal information: Communications Earth & Environment

Provided by University of Reading

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Machine-learning models can predict colonization outcomes of complex microbial communities

53 minutes ago

Chiral molecule research achieves near-complete separation in quantum states

International consortium with NASA reveals hidden impact of spaceflight on gut health

Novel motion simulator reveals key role of air flow in rodent navigation

Scientists discover how starfish get 'legless'

What's in the foods we eat? Researchers develop a food microbiome database

Researchers create entangled quantum magnets with protected quantum excitations

New research busts the myth that crossbred 'designer dogs' are healthier than pedigrees

Bacterial defense strategy has potential application in genome editing

Upgraded atomic force microscope captures 3D images of calcite dissolving

Relevant physicsforums posts, will cryosleep ever be a reality, any suggestions to dampen the sounds of a colostomy bag.

20 hours ago

The predictive brain (Stimulus-Specific Error Prediction Neurons)

Aug 27, 2024

Any stereo audio learning resources for other languages?

Aug 25, 2024

Cannot find a comfortable side-sleeping position

Therapeutic interfering particle.

Aug 24, 2024

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

Researchers identify sustainable farming practices in Indonesia

Jul 8, 2024

How does organic farming benefit honey bees?

Aug 21, 2024

Organic farmers' beliefs about soil microbiome affect their practices, study shows

Jun 13, 2024

Study shows bats struggle during organic farming transition

Jul 20, 2023

Pesticide-free as a new pathway for agriculture

Mar 18, 2024

Is organic farming always good for the environment? Researchers create strategy to help decide

Jul 13, 2022

Recommended for you

Can fungi turn food waste into the next culinary sensation?

7 hours ago

Lack of pollinators limits worldwide food production, crop yield analysis finds

Research unravels dual role of membrane protein in rice ethylene signal transduction

Aug 23, 2024

Study shows continuous manufacturing reduces cultivated meat costs

Pilot study uses recycled glass to grow plants for salsa ingredients

The banana apocalypse is near, but biologists might have found a key to their survival

Aug 16, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Blockchain in Agriculture Research

Exploring the Use of Blockchain Technology to Improve Food Security Through African Indigenous Vegetables in Western Kenya

PI: Ralph Hall; Co-PI: Jessica Agnew

Funding Agency: LASER (Long-term Assistance and Services for Research) PULSE (Partners for University-Led Solutions Engine) - USAID

Project Budget: $236,849

This research conducted by researchers at Virginia Tech (US) and Egerton University (Kenya) and the Australian tech start-up, AgUnity. It was one of the first projects to investigate how blockchain can support food security outcomes by strengthening the supply chains for African indigenous vegetables. The project took place in Kakamega county located in western Kenya.  

The results reveal that the record keeping functionality of the blockchain app has helped value chain actors to better negotiate profitable prices for the products, introduced standardization of weights in transactions, reduced waste and post-harvest loss, created reliable market information, and reduced the occurrence of exploitation, failure to repay credit, and corruption. The AgUnity App also increased cooperative behavior between actors in the value chain, which led to the self-led organization of farmers and improved value chain governance, and created more time, especially for women, to pursue other types of entrepreneurial endeavors.

Promoting and Upscaling Digital Solutions for Enhancing Women Smallholder Farmers Growth and Resilience

PIs: Harrison Byrnes (AgUnity), Jessica Agnew (Virginia Tech)

Funding Agency: Direct Aid Program, Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, Australian Government  

Project Budget: $15,000

This project aimed to improve the price received by Katta Muduga Cooperative Union for coffee through the use of digital technology including blockchain. The goal was to use complementary technologies to create Improved connectivity between value chain actors, including consumers, through transparent and direct payments. 

Virginia Tech faculty, Jessica Agnew, conducted research on the feasibility of introducing a utility token payment system in the Ethiopian coffee sector to facilitate royalty payments made directly to farmers. Research activities included conducting a market study to understand the economic ecosystem and regulations that would impact the system’s success, evaluate the demand for a utility token payment system by investigating pain points and costs of transactions, gender dynamics, and value chain structure, and interrogate the potential of the utility token payment system.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 19 May 2020

Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system

• Mario Herrero   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7741-5090 1 ,
• Philip K. Thornton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1854-0182 2 ,
• Daniel Mason-D’Croz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0673-2301 1 ,
• Jeda Palmer 1 ,
• Tim G. Benton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7448-1973 3 ,
• Benjamin L. Bodirsky   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8242-6712 4 ,
• Jessica R. Bogard   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5503-5284 1 ,
• Andrew Hall   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8580-6569 1 ,
• Bernice Lee 3 ,
• Karine Nyborg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0359-548X 5 ,
• Prajal Pradhan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0491-5489 4 ,
• Graham D. Bonnett 1 ,
• Brett A. Bryan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4834-5641 6 ,
• Bruce M. Campbell 7 , 8 ,
• Svend Christensen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1112-1954 7 ,
• Michael Clark   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7161-7751 9 ,
• Mathew T. Cook 1 ,
• Imke J. M. de Boer 10 ,
• Chris Downs 1 ,
• Kanar Dizyee 1 ,
• Christian Folberth   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6738-5238 11 ,
• Cecile M. Godde 1 ,
• James S. Gerber   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6890-0481 12 ,
• Michael Grundy 1 ,
• Petr Havlik 11 ,
• Andrew Jarvis 8 ,
• Richard King   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6404-8052 3 ,
• Ana Maria Loboguerrero   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2690-0763 8 ,
• Mauricio A. Lopes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0671-9940 11 ,
• C. Lynne McIntyre 1 ,
• Rosamond Naylor 13 ,
• Javier Navarro 1 ,
• Michael Obersteiner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6981-2769 11 ,
• Alejandro Parodi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1351-138X 10 ,
• Mark B. Peoples 1 ,
• Ilje Pikaar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1820-9983 14 , 15 ,
• Alexander Popp 4 ,
• Johan Rockström 4 , 16 ,
• Michael J. Robertson 1 ,
• Pete Smith   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3784-1124 17 ,
• Elke Stehfest   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3016-2679 18 ,
• Steve M. Swain   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6118-745X 1 ,
• Hugo Valin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0618-773X 11 ,
• Mark van Wijk 19 ,
• Hannah H. E. van Zanten   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5262-5518 10 ,
• Sonja Vermeulen 3 , 20 ,
• Joost Vervoort 21 &
• Paul C. West   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9024-1657 12  

Nature Food volume  1 ,  pages 266–272 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

14k Accesses

305 Citations

340 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Agriculture
• Science, technology and society

Future technologies and systemic innovation are critical for the profound transformation the food system needs. These innovations range from food production, land use and emissions, all the way to improved diets and waste management. Here, we identify these technologies, assess their readiness and propose eight action points that could accelerate the transition towards a more sustainable food system. We argue that the speed of innovation could be significantly increased with the appropriate incentives, regulations and social licence. These, in turn, require constructive stakeholder dialogue and clear transition pathways.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Combined innovations in public policy, the private sector and culture can drive sustainability transitions in food systems

Global food systems transitions have enabled affordable diets but had less favourable outcomes for nutrition, environmental health, inclusion and equity

Food system development pathways for healthy, nature-positive and inclusive food systems

Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562 , 519–525 (2018).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Frank, S. et al. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Environ. Res. Lett. 12 , 105004 (2017).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

van Ittersum, M. K. et al. Can sub-Saharan Africa feed itself? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113 , 14964–14969 (2016).

Article   Google Scholar  

Havlík, P. et al. Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111 , 3709–3714 (2014).

Rosegrant, M. W. et al. Food Security in a World of Natural Resource Scarcity The Role of Agricultural Technologies (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2014).

Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478 , 337–342 (2011).

Rockström, J. et al. Planet-proofing the global food system. Nat. Food 1 , 3–5 (2020).

Google Scholar  

Gao, L. & Bryan, B. A. Finding pathways to national-scale land-sector sustainability. Nature 544 , 217–222 (2017).

Arneth, A. et. al. Summary for Policymakers. In Special Report on Climate Change and Land (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (IPCC, WMO, 2019).

Searchinger, T. et al. Creating a Sustainable Food Future: a Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050 (Agency for International Development, 2018).

Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT– Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393 , 447–429 (2019).

Pikaar, I. et al. Decoupling livestock from land use through industrial feed production pathways. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 , 7351–7359 (2018).

Walsh, B. J. et al. New feed sources key to ambitious climate targets. Carbon Balance Manag 10 , 1–8 (2015).

Bumpus, A. & Comello, S. Emerging clean energy technology investment trends. Nat. Clim. Chang 7 , 382–385 (2017).

Froggatt, A. & Wellesley, L. Meat Analogues: Considerations for the EU (Chatham House, 2019).

Hall, A. & Dijkman, J. Public Agricultural Research and Development in an Era of Transformation Vol. 1 (Independent Science Council of the CGIAR and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 2019).

Selian, A. N. & McKnight, L. In The Pursuit of Human Well-Being (eds. Estes, R. & Sirgy, M.) 639–687 (Springer, 2017).

Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 20260–20264 (2011).

Davis, K. F. et al. Historical trade-offs of livestock’s environmental impacts. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 , 125013 (2015).

Campbell, B. M. et al. Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 22 , 8 (2017).

Swinburn, B. A. et al. The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change: The Lancet Commission report. Lancet 6736 , 1–56 (2019).

Mankins, J. C. Technology Readiness Levels, A White Paper (NASA, 1995).

Mankins, J. C. Technology readiness assessments: a retrospective. Acta Astronautica 65 , 1216–1223 (2009).

Hirshhorn, S. et al. Final Report of the NASA Technology Readiness Assessment Study Team (NASA, 2016).

Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision ESA Working Paper No. 12–03 (FAO, 2012).

Swedish Research and Innovation Strategy for a Bio-based Economy (Swedish Research Council for Environment Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, 2012).

National Bioeconomy Blueprint (Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2012).

El-Chichakli, B., von Braun, J., Lang, C., Barben, D. & Philp, J. Policy: Five cornerstones of a global bioeconomy. Nature 535 , 221–223 (2016).

System Innovation: Synthesis Report (OECD, 2015).

Sánchez-Mejía, M. in Globalization and Health Inequities in Latin America (Malagón de Salazar, L. & Luján Villar, R.) 205–218 (Springer International Publishing, 2018).

Philp, J. The bioeconomy, the challenge of the century for policy makers. Nat. Biotechnol. 40 , 11–19 (2018).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Building the Bioeconomy 4th edn (Pugatch Consilium, 2017).

Noack, A.-L. & Pouw, N. R. M. A blind spot in food and nutrition security: where culture and social change shape the local food plate. Agric. Human Values 32 , 169–182 (2015).

Wellesley, L., Happer, C. & Froggatt, A. Changing Climate , Changing Diets: Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption (Chatham House, 2015).

Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354 , 42–43 (2016).

Greaker, M. & Midttømme, K. Network effects and environmental externalities: do clean technologies suffer from excess inertia? J. Public Econ. 143 , 27–38 (2016).

Román, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M. & Siegrist, M. The importance of food naturalness for consumers: results of a systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 67 , 44–57 (2017).

Stilgoe., J., Owen, R. & McNaghten, P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy 42 , 1568–1580 (2013).

Mytelka, L. K. Competition, Innovation and Competitiveness in Developing Countries (OECD, 1999).

Snowden, D. J. The Cynefin Framework (Cognitive Edge, accessed 22 December 2018); https://cognitive-edge.com/

Asheim, G. B. et al. The case for a supply-side climate treaty. Science 365 , 325–327 (2019).

Acemoglu, D., Akcigit, U., Hanley, D. & Kerr, W. Transition to clean technology. J. Polit. Econ. 124 , 52–104 (2016).

Harstad, B., Lancia, F. & Russo, A. Compliance technology and self-enforcing agreements. J. Europ. Econ. Assoc 17 , 1–29 (2019).

Ashford, N. in The Steilmann Report: The Wealth of People: An Intelligent Economy for the 21st Century 233–274 (2001).

Dempwolf, C. S., Auer, J. & D’Ippolito, M. Innovation Accelerators: Defining Characteristics among Start-Up Assistance Organisations (Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, Univ. Maryland, 2014).

Bryant, C. & Barnett, J. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: a systematic review. Meat Sci. 143 , 8–17 (2018).

de Boer, J. & Aiking, H. Prospects for pro-environmental protein consumption in Europe: cultural, culinary, economic and psychological factors. Appetite 121 , 29–40 (2018).

Vanhonacker, F., Van Loo, E. J., Gellynck, X. & Verbeke, W. Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite 62 , 7–16 (2013).

Preston, F. & Lehne, J. A Wider Circle? The Circular Economy in Developing Countries (Chatham House, 2017).

Mazzucato, M. From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy. Ind. Innov 23 , 140–156 (2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

M.H., D.M.-D., J.P.J., J.R.B., G.D.B., M.T.C., C.D., C.M.G., M.G., C.L.M., J.N., M.B.P., M.J.R. and S.M.S. acknowledge funding from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; P.T., B.M.C., A.J. and A.M.L. acknowledge funding from the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), which is carried out with support from the CGIAR Trust Fund and through bilateral funding agreements (see https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors ). The views expressed in this document cannot be taken to reflect the official opinions of these organizations. B.L.B. acknowledges funding from the NAVIGATE project of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement 821124, and by the project SHAPE, which is part of AXIS, an ERA-NET initiated by JPI Climate, and funded by FORMAS (SE), FFG/BMWFW (AT), DLR/BMBF (DE, grant no. 01LS1907A-B-C), NWO (NL) and RCN (NO) with co-funding by the European Union (grant no. 776608); P.P. acknowledges funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant agreement no. 01DP17035); M.C. acknowledges funding from the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People), award number 205212/Z/16/Z; J.S.G., P.S. and P.C.W. acknowledge funding from the Belmont Forum/FACCE-JPI DEVIL project (grant no. NE/M021327/1); A.P. acknowledges funding from the NAVIGATE project of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement 821124, and by the project SHAPE, which is part of AXIS, an ERA-NET initiated by JPI Climate, and funded by FORMAS (SE), FFG/BMWFW (AT), DLR/BMBF (DE, grant no. 01LS1907A-B-C), NWO (NL) and RCN (NO) with co-funding by the European Union (grant no. 776608).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia https://www.csiro.au

Mario Herrero, Daniel Mason-D’Croz, Jeda Palmer, Jessica R. Bogard, Andrew Hall, Graham D. Bonnett, Mathew T. Cook, Chris Downs, Kanar Dizyee, Cecile M. Godde, Michael Grundy, C. Lynne McIntyre, Javier Navarro, Mark B. Peoples, Michael J. Robertson & Steve M. Swain

CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya

Philip K. Thornton

The Royal Institute for International Affairs, Chatham House, London, UK

Tim G. Benton, Bernice Lee, Richard King & Sonja Vermeulen

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam, Germany

Benjamin L. Bodirsky, Prajal Pradhan, Alexander Popp & Johan Rockström

Department of Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Karine Nyborg

Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia

Brett A. Bryan

Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Fredriksberg, Denmark

Bruce M. Campbell & Svend Christensen

CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Cali, Colombia

Bruce M. Campbell, Andrew Jarvis & Ana Maria Loboguerrero

Livestock, Environment and People, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Michael Clark

Animal Production Systems group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands

Imke J. M. de Boer, Alejandro Parodi & Hannah H. E. van Zanten

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

Christian Folberth, Petr Havlik, Mauricio A. Lopes, Michael Obersteiner & Hugo Valin

Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, St Paul, USA

James S. Gerber & Paul C. West

Center on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Rosamond Naylor

The School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

Ilje Pikaar

Advanced Water Management Centre, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

Institute of Environmental Science and Geography, Universität Potsdam, Campus Golm, Potsdam-Golm, Germany

Johan Rockström

Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, Netherlands

Elke Stehfest

International Livestock Research Institute, Sustainable Livestock Systems, Nairobi, Kenya

Mark van Wijk

CGIAR System Management Organisation, Montpellier, France

Sonja Vermeulen

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

Joost Vervoort

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

M.H., P.K.T., D.M.C., J.P. and J.B. designed the research. M.H., P.K.T., D.M.C., J.P., A.H., B.L. and K.N. wrote the manuscript. M.H., P.K.T., D.M.C. J.P., J.B., C.G., K.D. and J.N. analysed data. All authors contributed data and edited the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Herrero .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary methods, discussion and Tables 1,2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Mason-D’Croz, D. et al. Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nat Food 1 , 266–272 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1

Download citation

Received : 09 August 2019

Accepted : 13 April 2020

Published : 19 May 2020

Issue Date : May 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Modelling six sustainable development transformations in australia and their accelerators, impediments, enablers, and interlinkages.

• Cameron Allen
• Annabel Biddulph
• Shirin Malekpour

Nature Communications (2024)

Maize yield prediction and condition monitoring at the sub-county scale in Kenya: synthesis of remote sensing information and crop modeling

• Harison K. Kipkulei
• Sonoko D. Bellingrath-Kimura
• Stefan Sieber

Scientific Reports (2024)

Assessing and addressing the global state of food production data scarcity

• Endalkachew Abebe Kebede
• Hanan Abou Ali
• Kyle Frankel Davis

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment (2024)

Fish Waste to Valuable Products: Nanotechnological Approach

• Ahmet Faruk Yesilsu
• Esen Alp-Erbay
• İlhan Aydin

BioNanoScience (2024)

What is culturally appropriate food consumption? A systematic literature review exploring six conceptual themes and their implications for sustainable food system transformation

• Jonas House
• Hilje van der Horst

Agriculture and Human Values (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.