Farm Futures logo

Can U.S. ag become a carbon sink?Can U.S. ag become a carbon sink?

Study details five ways U.S. ag could become greenhouse gas negative – and recommends farmers should be paid for the effort.

Bruce Blythe, Senior Editor, Commodities

January 17, 2025

6 Min Read
Can U.S. ag become a carbon sink?
Getty images

American agriculture could become a “carbon sink” through accelerated use of cover crops, anaerobic digesters and other practices that may cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 10% by 2040, according to a recent study from a group backed by several major food and agribusiness companies.

While agriculture must be a leader in reducing carbon emissions and addressing climate change, such environmental practices must make business sense for farmers, said co-author Marty Matlock, Ph.D., University of Arkansas. He emphasized there must be broader recognition that while farmers produce goods, they also provide free benefits from their work on the land.

“We need to start thinking about our food system as a global positive good, a human good, not as a commoditized resource, and manage it effectively,” Matlock said. “Which means we need to pay for carbon sequestration and ecosystem services on the farm, in the field.”

The study, Potential for U.S. Agriculture to Be Greenhouse Gas Negative, released in November by U.S. Farmers & Ranchers in Action, cited five major areas that offer opportunities to reduce ag’s carbon footprint:

  • soil carbon management

  • nitrogen fertilizer management

  • animal production and management

  • crop production the yield gap

  • efficient energy use.

Related:7 ag stories you can’t miss – February 14, 2025

The study’s key message, according to co-author Chuck Rice, Ph.D., Kansas State University, is that reducing ag’s carbon output requires a systems approach.

“It’s not just looking at soil carbons; it requires a synergy between all of these elements,” Rice said. “Not all ideas fit everywhere … but there are multiple strategies to achieve a negative greenhouse agriculture.”

Agriculture is a significant contributor to the country’s GHG emissions, which trap heat from the sun and, scientists believe, have contributed to global warming, which raised average global temperatures in recent years to the highest levels ever recorded. GHGs include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emitted through farmers’ use of nitrogen fertilizers, livestock production and other sources.

In 2021, agriculture accounted for 10.6% of U.S. GHG emissions, according to USDA. Industry ranked No. 1 at 30.1%. And transportation came in at No. 2, with 28.5%.

Growing pressure to curtail carbon emissions comes while the U.S. farm economy is mired in a protracted slump that’s expected to persist into 2025 if not longer, as corn, soybean and wheat prices trade near four-year lows amid pressure from excess supplies.

Related:Deere shares fall on farm slump as tariffs threaten demand

The slump has prompted many U.S. farmers to seek alternative income sources through solar or wind energy production, carbon credit programs and other carbon-neutral or sustainable agriculture efforts. Several major agriculture companies, including Cargill and Corteva, offer carbon payment opportunities for farmers.

In USFRA’s report, authored by an independent group of 26 leading scientists and peer-reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, noted that carbon “is foundational in agricultural systems because it is the currency that forms the basis for all living organisms.”

Therefore, transitioning towards a GHG negative agricultural production system “does not mean the elimination of carbon; but rather, it requires the most efficient utilization of carbon in production of food, feed, fuel, and fiber required to sustain society.”

A U.S. agricultural production system that is greenhouse gas negative would have a limited impact on total global GHG emissions, according to the report. However, the report notes “it would serve as a strong model for the world community.” Reducing global ag’s net GHG by 50% would impact worldwide emissions by more than 10%, the report added.

Five areas where ag could make a difference

USFRA’s website lists several “partners,” including meat processor Tyson Foods, ethanol producer Poet and seed and chemical giant Bayer, as well as fast-food chains Culver’s and McDonald’s. Other partners include ag lobbying or trade groups, such as Dairy Management Inc., the United Egg Producers and the United Soybean Board.

Related:The good, the bad and the ugly debt

The following are brief summaries of the report’s five opportunities to reduce agriculture’s carbon footprint.

Soil Carbon Management

Sequestration of carbon into the soil is “one of the largest potential areas” for agriculture to reduce its carbon footprint, the report said. Achieving this goal would require adoption of regenerative practices including reduced tillage, crop diversity, continual cover of soil, cover crops and integration of livestock into cropping systems. Benefits include increased soil carbon and potential crop resilience to weather extremes, decreased energy inputs and improved quality of grain or forage. Increasing carbon storage in the soil could account for approximately 20% to 35% of the total emissions from agriculture.

Nitrogen Fertilizer Management

Application of nitrogen to crops represents one of the largest inputs of energy and GHG impacts from agriculture due to the release of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere. However, “it may be one of the more easily adoptable changes in management because it requires a modification in the rate, form, time or placement of the nitrogen fertilizer,” the report said. The impact could range from 20% to 50% of total agricultural emissions, with the return to the producer being reduced fertilizer costs and increased nitrogen use efficiency.

Animal Production and Management

Animal production linked to the release of enteric methane from ruminants accounts for nearly half of agricultural GHG emissions. A wide range of opportunities exist to curb emissions, contingent on the type of production system. There are three areas of potential impact: feeding systems for ruminants, manure handling and feed production. For example, dairy systems have potential for all three interventions, while grazing cattle is limited to changes in forage quality. Study results suggest methane emissions could be reduced by 20% to 40%, depending on the practice. However, “there is a trade-off with costs related to these changes and impacts on either meat or milk production,” the report said. “The primary challenge is to demonstrate the effectiveness of feed management practices at a scale in which producers have confidence in the results.”

Crop Production and the Yield Gap

Crop production systems represent the integration of a series of inputs with a GHG impact, and improving production efficiencies can reduce carbon output. This does not require a major change in the practices; but rather, an increased understanding of the factors limiting the realization of genetic potential. Any increase in production improves the crop’s carbon return on investment. The tools exist to help producers evaluate their cropping systems and are applicable to all plants in the agricultural system, including grains, fiber, vegetables, fruit and nuts. Further development and application of tools is needed to help producers evaluate their systems for production changes and technical assistance is needed for long-term support of the application of these technologies.

Efficient Energy Use in Agriculture

Opportunities exist to reduce agriculture’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels through natural and renewable energy sources, and a “pathway” exists for reducing the industry’s carbon footprint by 10% of total emissions. Altering the form of energy sources or adopting new technologies, such as solar and wind, cellulosic energy, and shifting corn ethanol to herbaceous sources, will require investments for development and implementation on the farm. The return on this investment would potentially impact the ability of producers to increase their energy efficiency of production and achieve multiple environmental goals of cleaner water and air and enhanced landscapes.

Click here for the full USFRA report.

About the Author

Bruce Blythe

Senior Editor, Commodities, Farm Futures

Bruce Blythe is a senior editor at Farm Futures. He has covered commodity markets, agribusiness and the farm economy for Bloomberg, Dow Jones Newswires, Reuters and Farm Journal Media's Pro Farmer. He got his start in ag news as a wire service reporter writing about the livestock and grain futures markets from the trading floors of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade.

Blythe also worked as an assistant managing editor at Crain’s Chicago Business and, most recently, as a financial writer and editor for Charles Schwab's Insights & Education editorial team. 

He grew up on his family’s grain and livestock farm outside Williamsburg, Iowa, and holds a degree in agricultural journalism from Iowa State University. He lives in Elmhurst, Ill., with his family.

Subscribe to receive top agriculture news
Be informed daily with these free e-newsletters

You May Also Like