case study in agriculture

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Case Study: How Would You Save This Farm?

• Forest L. Reinhardt
• Alison Beard

Drought is forcing a tough choice.

Pete Walker liked to start each morning with a drive around the fields. Of course, he could monitor his crops by scanning computer screens back in the farmhouse, but he liked to see and smell the tilled soil, sprouting tendrils, bushy trees, and ripe produce for himself. He sat back in the seat of his Jeep, sipped his coffee, and looked out at the horizon. The 23,000 acres of Walker Farms stretched before him under a pale blue, invariably cloudless California sky.

• Forest L. Reinhardt is the  John D. Black Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. He also serves as faculty chair of the HBS Asia-Pacific Research Center and chair of HBS Executive Education, Asia-Pacific Region.
• Alison Beard is an executive editor at Harvard Business Review and previously worked as a reporter and editor at the Financial Times. A mom of two, she tries—and sometimes succeeds—to apply management best practices to her household. alisonwbeard

Partner Center

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

Sustainable agricultural business model: case studies of innovative indian farmers.

1. Introduction

2. key issues of agriculture farming in india, 3. agriculture farming models in india, 3.1. conventional agriculture farming business model, 3.2. sustainable agriculture farming business model, 4. case study methods, case study process, 5. case descriptions, 5.1. btc: within state technology-enabled farming in central pradesh, 5.1.1. context, 5.1.2. business process model, 5.1.3. outcome measures, 5.2. tatkim: regional scale natural farming, 5.2.1. context, 5.2.2. business process model, 5.2.3. outcomes measures, 5.3. the kopi taluk: individual scale natural farming, 5.3.1. context, 5.3.2. business process model, 5.3.3. outcome measures, 5.4. case of dgl: community cooperatives scale natural farming.

• Rainwater harvesting, developing groundwater sources, water rejuvenation and recharge, and creating awareness on water management.
• Green revolution: plantation, maintenance, and encouragement to go green.
• Initiating natural and organic farming and educating the local farming community.

5.4.1. Context

5.4.2. business process model, 5.4.3. outcome measures, 6. implications of the study, 7. limitations of the study, 8. conclusions, recommendations, future research, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Kingwell-Banham, E. Dry, rainfed or irrigated? Reevaluating the role and development of rice agriculture in Iron Age-Early Historic South India using archaeobotanical approaches. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 2019 , 11 , 6485–6500. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Suresh, A.; Krishnan, P.; Jha, G.K.; Reddy, A.A. Agricultural Sustainability and Its Trends in India: A Macro-Level Index-Based Empirical Evaluation. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 2540. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Laborde, D.; Mamun, A.; Martin, W.; Piñeiro, V.; Vos, R. Agricultural subsidies and global greenhouse gas emissions. Nat. Commun. 2021 , 12 , 2601. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kumar, P.; Singh, S.S.; Pandey, A.K.; Singh, R.K.; Srivastava, P.K.; Kumar, M.; Dubey, S.K.; Sah, U.; Nandan, R.; Singh, S.K.; et al. Multi-level impacts of the COVID-19 lockdown on agricultural systems in India: The case of Uttar Pradesh. Agric. Syst. 2020 , 187 , 103027. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jouzi, Z.; Azadi, H.; Taheri, F.; Zarafshani, K.; Gebrehiwot, K.; Van Passel, S.; Lebailly, P. Organic Farming and Small-Scale Farmers: Main Opportunities and Challenges. Ecol. Econ. 2017 , 132 , 144–154. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Agarwal, B. Can group farms outperform individual family farms? Empirical insights from India. World Dev. 2018 , 108 , 57–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Economic analysis of sustainable water use: A review of worldwide research. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 198 , 1120–1132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barth, H.; Ulvenblad, P.O.; Ulvenblad, P. Towards a conceptual framework of sustainable business model innovation in the agri-food sector: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2017 , 9 , 1620. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ochoa-Noriega, C.A.; Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; Álvarez-Bejar, A. The use of water in agriculture in mexico and its sustainable management: A bibliometric review. Agronomy 2020 , 10 , 1957. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Juhász, C.; Gálya, B.; Kovács, E.; Nagy, A.; Tamás, J.; Huzsvai, L. Seasonal predictability of weather and crop yield in regions of Central European continental climate. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020 , 173 , 105400. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pradhan, K.C.; Mukherjee, S. Examining Technical Efficiency in Indian Agricultural Production Using Production Frontier Model. South Asia Eco. J. 2018 , 19 , 22–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Soshte, R. A Study on Development of Agricultural Sector in India. Think India J. 2019 , 22 , 1–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Agriculture in India: Information about Indian Agriculture Importance ; Agriculture and Allied Industries Report; Indian Brand Equity Foundation: New Delhi, India, 2022.
• Lichtfouse, E.; Navarrete, M.; Debaeke, P.; Souchère, V.; Alberola, C.; Ménassieu, J. Agronomy for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2009 , 29 , 1–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Constance, D.H. Sustainable agriculture in the United States: A critical examination of a contested process. Sustainability 2010 , 2 , 48–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dabholkar, S.A. Plenty for All , 3rd ed.; Farmers Problems and Solutions in India: Problems in India; Mehta Publishing House: Pune, India, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ceballos, F.; Kannan, S.; Kramer, B. Impacts of a national lockdown on smallholder farmers’ income and food security: Empirical evidence from two states in India. World Dev. 2020 , 136 , 105069. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Groot, A.E.; Bolt, J.S.; Jat, H.S.; Jat, M.L.; Kumar, M.; Agarwal, T.; Blok, V. Business models of SMEs as a mechanism for scaling climate smart technologies: The case of Punjab, India. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 210 , 1109–1119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Velu, C. A systems perspective on business model evolution: The case of an agricultural information service provider in India. Long Range Plan. 2017 , 50 , 603–620. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sengupta, T.; Narayanamurthy, G.; Hota, P.K.; Sarker, T.; Dey, S. Conditional acceptance of digitized business model innovation at the BoP: A stakeholder analysis of eKutir in India. Tech. Soci. Change 2021 , 170 , 120857. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sumberg, J.; Giller, K.E. What is ‘conventional’ agriculture? Glob. Food Secur. 2022 , 32 , 100617. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sarkar, B.; Icar, S.; Kumar, U.; Sarma, K. Traditional Agricultural Tools used by Tribal Farmers in Eastern India. Res. J. Agric. Sci. 2015 , 6 , 215–219. [ Google Scholar ]
• Linder, J.C.; Cantrell, S. Five business-model myths that hold companies back. Strategy Leadersh. 2001 , 29 , 13–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Velten, S.; Leventon, J.; Jager, N.; Newig, J. What is sustainable agriculture? A systematic review. Sustainability 2015 , 7 , 7833–7865. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hernandez-Aguilera, J.N.; Gómez, M.I.; Rodewald, A.D.; Rueda, X.; Anunu, C.; Bennett, R.; van Es, H.M. Quality as a Driver of Sustainable Agricultural Value Chains: The Case of the Relationship Coffee Model. Busi. Strate. Environ. 2018 , 27 , 179–198. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Di Vaio, A.; Boccia, F.; Landriani, L.; Palladino, R. Artificial intelligence in the agri-food system: Rethinking sustainable business models in the COVID-19 scenario. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 4851. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cederholm Björklund, J. Barriers to Sustainable Business Model Innovation in Swedish Agriculture. J. Entrep. Manag. Innov. 2018 , 14 , 65–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ioannis, M.; George, M.; Socrates, M. A community-based Agro-Food Hub model for sustainable farming. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 1017. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yin, R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 2nd ed.; Sage Publishing: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin, R. Applications of Case Study Research ; Sage Publishing: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stake, R. The Art of Case Research ; Sage Publishing: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Narayanan, S. Organic Farming in India: Relevance, Problems and Constraints ; Open Government data (OGD) Platform India; Department of Economic Analysis and Research, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development: Mumbai, India, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Varshney, D.; Kumar, A.; Mishra, A.K.; Rashid, S.; Joshi, P.K. India’s COVID-19 social assistance package and its impact on the agriculture sector. Agric. Syst. 2021 , 189 , 103049. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Denzin, N. The Research Act ; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• David, M.; Upton, V.; Fuller, A. The ITC eChoupal Initiative. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2004 , 9 , 1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anuj, G.; Philip, M.; Parker, I.T.C. E-Choupal (B), Revolutionizing Agriculture In India by Propagating Technology ; INSEAD The Business School for the World: Paris, France, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bello, W.B. Problems and Prospect of Organic Farming in Developing Countries. Ethiop. J. Environ. Stud. Manag. 2008 , 1 , 36–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, J.; Pradhan, M.; Singh, N. Sustainable organic farming in Sikkim: An inclusive perspective. Lect. Notes Electr. Eng. 2018 , 435 , 367–378. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paul, J. Four New Strategies To Grow the Organic Agriculture Sector. Agrofor 2018 , 2 , 122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feuerbacher, A.; Luckmann, J.; Boysen, O.; Zikeli, S.; Grethe, H. Is Bhutan destined for 100% organic? Assessing the economy-wide effects of a large-scale conversion policy. PLoS ONE 2018 , 13 , e0199025. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kumar, A.; Babu, S.; Singh, R.; Saha, S.; EL, M.B.; Devi, R.L.; Mishra, V.K. Integrated Organic Farming System (IOFS): An Holistic Approach for Food, Nutrition and Livelihood Security of Marginal and Small Farmers in Terraces Land of Sikkim Himalayas. Agricolation 2022 , 1 , 122. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meek, D.; Anderson, C.R. Scale and the politics of the organic transition in Sikkim, India. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020 , 44 , 653–672. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gurung, R. Sikkim’s Organic mission: Role of farmer producer organisations. Indian J. Hill Farming 2020 , 139–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh Verma, J.; Sharma, P. Potential of Organic Farming to Mitigate Climate Change and Increase Small Farmers’ Welfare. A J. HIPA Shimla 2019 , 6 , 139–156. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharma, C.R. Perspectives of Organic Farming in Sikkim: A Descriptive Approach. Int. J. Rese. Public Rev. 2021 , 1210 , 7421. [ Google Scholar ]
• Census Organization of India. Villages and Towns in Gobichettipalayam Taluka of Erode ; Census Organization of India: Tamil Nadu, India, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liang, K.; Yang, T.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, J.; Luo, M.; Fu, L.; Zhao, B. Effects of intercropping rice and water spinach on net yields and pest control: An experiment in southern China. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2016 , 59 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Hong, P.; N. L., B.; N., V.; M., S. Sustainable Agricultural Business Model: Case Studies of Innovative Indian Farmers. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 10242. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610242

Hong P, N. L. B, N. V, M. S. Sustainable Agricultural Business Model: Case Studies of Innovative Indian Farmers. Sustainability . 2022; 14(16):10242. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610242

Hong, Paul, Balasudarsun N. L., Vivek N., and Sathish M. 2022. "Sustainable Agricultural Business Model: Case Studies of Innovative Indian Farmers" Sustainability 14, no. 16: 10242. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610242

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Climate-smart agriculture Projects from around the world case studies 2021

Addressing climate change and transforming agri-food systems are key to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). With nearly 690 million people around the world facing hunger today (FAO et al., 2020), agri-food systems emitting one third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions (Crippa et al., 2021) and a growing public demand for climate action, it is pressing to achieve food security while adapting to - and mitigating - climate change. Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) has grown from a concept into an approach implemented throughout the world, by all types of stakeholders. This publication describes climate-smart agriculture case studies that apply the five action points for CSA implementation. The action points are: 1) expanding the evidence base for CSA, 2) supporting enabling policy frameworks, 3) strengthening national and local institutions, 4) enhancing funding and financing options, and 5) implementing CSA practices at field level. The five action points were created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) as a methodology for implementing the climate-smart-agriculture approach at a national scale. These action points provide the structure for this publication. The case studies discuss context-specific activities that contribute to CSA’s three pillars: sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and incomes, adapting and building resilience of people and agri-food systems to climate change, and reducing and/or removing greenhouse gas emissions where possible. Many of the case studies pay special attention to smallholder farmers, including women and indigenous groups, who are particularly affected by the impacts of climate change.

Share this page

• Publications
• Conferences & Events
• Professional Learning
• Science Standards
• Awards & Competitions
• Instructional Materials
• Free Resources
• American Rescue Plan
• For Preservice Teachers
• NCCSTS Case Collection
• Science and STEM Education Jobs
• Interactive eBooks+
• Digital Catalog
• Regional Product Representatives
• e-Newsletters
• Bestselling Books
• Latest Books
• Popular Book Series
• Prospective Authors
• Web Seminars
• Exhibits & Sponsorship
• Conference Reviewers
• National Conference • Denver 24
• Leaders Institute 2024
• National Conference • New Orleans 24
• Submit a Proposal
• Latest Resources
• Professional Learning Units & Courses
• For Districts
• Online Course Providers
• Schools & Districts
• College Professors & Students
• The Standards
• Teachers and Admin
• eCYBERMISSION
• Toshiba/NSTA ExploraVision
• Junior Science & Humanities Symposium
• Teaching Awards
• Climate Change
• Earth & Space Science
• New Science Teachers
• Early Childhood
• Middle School
• High School
• Postsecondary
• Informal Education
• Journal Articles
• Lesson Plans
• e-newsletters
• Science & Children
• Science Scope
• The Science Teacher
• Journal of College Sci. Teaching
• Connected Science Learning
• NSTA Reports
• Next-Gen Navigator
• Science Update
• Teacher Tip Tuesday
• Trans. Sci. Learning

MyNSTA Community

• My Collections

Case Studies: Agriculture

All agriculture case studies.

Deep in the Weeds of Organic Farming

By Matthew S. Taylor, Mariëlle H. Hoefnagels, Mark E. Walvoord

The Stakeholders of Gorongosa National Park

By Andrea M.-K. Bierema, Sara D. Miller, Claudia E. Vergara

Are Oxpeckers Friends or Foes?

By Andrea M.-K. Bierema

Fishing Midst the Morning Dew

By Adela M. Acosta

Fields of Gold

By Gokhan Hacisalihoglu, Courtenay C. Strickland

Too Hot to Trot?

By Ashley E. Rhodes, Timothy G. Rozell

The Canadian Canola Controversy

By Susan E. Gass, Danielle Scriven

Aisles of Confusion

By Justin A. Pruneski, Enya J. Granados, Kaylee M. Wilburn

The Demise of the Forest People

By Katherine A. Kurth, Tomika M. Haller, Annalisa L. Sharkey

Could Grazing Be Dangerous? Ask the Cows!

By Kevin Pyatt, Michelle C. Pyatt, Michael I. Rule

POLICY AND PRACTICE REVIEWS article

The policy enabling environment for climate smart agriculture: a case study of california.

• 1 Almond Board of California, Modesto, CA, United States
• 2 Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States

Climate smart agriculture (CSA) provides a framework for balancing multiple dimensions of agriculture and food systems in an era of climate change: addressing agricultural contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions, vulnerabilities to climate change impacts, and the relationship between agricultural productivity, incomes and food security. As the global climate agenda more thoroughly integrates the CSA framework, policy makers often search for “triple wins”—practices that can mitigate emissions, increase resilience or adaptation, and increase productivity. Agriculture and food systems however, are complex systems with many agroecological and sociopolitical interdependencies. In many cases, there are necessary tradeoffs among the three CSA objectives, as advancement in one area may negatively impact another. A major challenge to implementing CSA across multiple geographies thus lies in the coordination of policies and programs that recognize these tradeoffs and allow for prioritization or reconciliation among the three objectives when there are conflicts. This paper describes California's adoption of CSA principles to illustrate how synergies and trade-offs are addressed in a policy framework that spans regulatory measures, incentive programs, research, and technological development, that is both climate specific and arising from other simultaneous environmental and economic priorities. We provide specific examples where agriculture has benefited and where it is constrained due to the balancing of CSA objectives, and discuss how the policy environment has evolved over time in attempts to deal with the complexity of the agriculture-climate nexus. This case serves to summarize and analyze the implemented CSA initiatives in one of most productive and well-resourced agricultural regions of the world; however, lessons learned from California can serve as transferable knowledge for other regions around the globe who are currently developing CSA policies and plans. Our findings suggest that cross-sectoral collaboration, policy coordination, and inclusion of a diverse set of stakeholders are fundamental to the efficacy of CSA strategies in complex and ever-evolving environmental and sociopolitical conditions.

Introduction

As climate change impacts expand in reach and severity, global food systems face risks of reduced agricultural production, market volatility, and threats to rural livelihoods and food security ( Foley et al., 2011 ). The concept of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) has gained international attention from scientists, policy makers, and farmers alike, as a framework for balancing the multiple dimensions of agriculture's intersection with climate change: mitigating agriculture's contribution to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, decreasing agriculture's vulnerability to climate change impacts, and acknowledging the essential link between agricultural productivity and food security ( Lipper et al., 2014 ). A number of international organizations, the Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Bank among them, have recently devoted significant attention and resources to building tools and providing guidance on the elements of CSA. The recent decision made by the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to fully integrate agriculture as part of climate actions, formally recognizes the three components of climate smart agriculture ( United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2017 ).

The emerging CSA discourse enticingly displays opportunities for “triple wins” through practices that simultaneously mitigate emissions, increase resilience or adaptation, and increase productivity. In reality, many contexts will require necessary trade-offs among these three objectives. Challenge, however, lies in the prioritization or reconciliation among the three objectives and enacting those priorities through policy planning and decisions. Agricultural and food systems are complex, with many inter dependent biophysical and ecological feedback processes, and influenced by the behaviors of human actors and governance systems at multiple scales of interaction ( Levin, 1998 ; Bodin and Crona, 2009 ; Ostrom, 2009 ). These systems are shaped both by their natural and socio-political attributes, which define where, how and what agriculture can take place, as well as how benefits and impacts of the agricultural activities will be distributed among relevant actors in the systems ( Gallopín, 2006 ; Arrow et al., 2014 ). Moreover, the governance within food systems occurs across multiple venues that operate at local, regional, national and global scales, each of which involve different, but often overlapping sets of actors and are seeking to reach different, but often interrelated goals. In the context of climate change, there will often be competing policy goals that seek to optimize either mitigation or adaptation, and we argue that absent of climate change, productivity is nearly always presumed the normative goal. This may set up competition among governing entities to set agendas and attract resources to their priorities, particularly when policy-making occurs across fragmented, task-specific bodies ( Hooghe and Marks, 2003 ). Furthermore, policy-makers are often limited to dealing with only one problem at a time, thus resulting in the lack of a “systems approach” that accounts for the interdependence among the components of the complex agroecosystem. In order to achieve greater success and efficacy of CSA strategies however, we argue that the interdependence and complexity of the nature of these systems must be accounted for to the greatest degree possible, by developing coordinated institutions and adaptable policies that stretch across multiple sectors and biophysical boundaries.

This paper analyzes the development of the CSA policy environment in California. Our objectives are to demonstrate where various elements of CSA policy intersect in complementary or contradictory ways and to evaluate how system complexity challenges the ability to simultaneously reach all three CSA goals in all places. The California state government has demonstrated political leadership and investment in climate action, integrating input from ongoing scientific research and an active and diverse network of bureaucratic, non-governmental and private sector actors who are heavily engaged in the development of CSA policy and practice. This affords a case to examine how the synergies and trade-offs required to implement CSA are addressed through an enabling policy environment that spans regulatory measures, incentive programs, and research that is both climate specific and arising from other environmental and economic priorities.

In the following sections, we lay out the multiple components of CSA in California, though we focus on mitigation and adaptation-oriented initiatives, with the justification that the majority of historic policies and innovations have been driven by goals to optimize productivity. In Case Context: California Agriculture And Climate, we describe California's agricultural sector and climate, demonstrating that the size of the agricultural economy and the State's international engagement on climate change and agricultural innovation make this case relevant and interesting in its ability to inform the actions of other countries. In Climate Mitigation: A Catalyst for CSA, we explain California's bold climate mitigation actions, to join national governments around the world in committing to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 ( Assembly Bill 32 Overview, 2014 ). It is within this mitigation framework that we show motivation for CSA actions began. Sustainable Water Management: A Cornerstone to California CSA describes how California's Mediterranean climate requires careful management of limited water resources, playing a critical role in the State's CSA adaptation strategies. Throughout these sections, we discuss how the policy framework has evolved and provide specific examples where agriculture has benefited and where it is constrained due to the balancing of CSA objectives and complex system interdependencies. In Role of Research and Technology Development, we discuss the influence of different stakeholders, from a diverse range of agricultural interests to environmental organizations and researchers, on policy development and implementation. Finally, in our Recommendations and Conclusions Sections, we discuss a range of possible solutions that may help to overcome the barriers created by system complexity and better facilitate policy coordination that allows for comprehensive CSA planning.

Case Context: California Agriculture and Climate

The topography and climate of California vary quite dramatically across the state, from temperate rainforest in the north, to arid desert in the south, and a vast Central Valley known for its Mediterranean climate with hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters. In the midst of such wide variation lies the largest agricultural economy in the United States, concentrated primarily in three regions of the state: the Central Valley, the Central Coast, and the South Coast. Most precipitation falls as rain in the northern half of the state and as snow on the Sierra Nevada mountain range, and then is moved across the state through a complex network of federal, state and local water infrastructure. Groundwater reserves are extensive and serve as an increasingly important water source for the state's agricultural operations, particularly during dry years when surface water is limited and environmental and urban needs limit surface water availability to agriculture.

California's agricultural sector spans across nearly 30 million acres of land and was valued at $50 billion in 2017, making it the nation's leading agricultural state in cash receipts and ranked 16th globally for agricultural value ( California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2018 ). The state contributes significantly to the U.S. domestic food supply, growing one-third of vegetables, two-thirds of fruits and nuts, and one-third of dairy consumed in the U.S. While highly ranked both nationally and globally for its productivity, agriculture accounts for only two percent of the state's gross domestic product (GDP) ( California Department of Food Agriculture, 2016 ).

At the same time, agricultural production contributes eight percent (35.3 MMTCO 2 e) of the state's total GHG emissions. Approximately 66 percent of that comes from the livestock sector (e.g., manure management and enteric fermentation), 20 percent from soil and fertilizer management in crop production, and 13 percent from fossil fuel use associated with production (e.g., irrigation pumps, temperature controlled storage, machinery) ( California Air Resources Board, 2017a ). Put in a global context however, California's agricultural emissions are relatively modest. By comparison, France's agricultural economy comprises under two percent of the country's GDP ( DG Agriculture Rural Development- Farm Economics Unit, 2018 ), but emits 94 MMTCO 2 eq, or almost 20 percent of the country's total GHG emissions ( Houllier, 2013 ), nearly three times that of California's sector.

With California's dry climate, fast-growing population, and relatively strong policies to protect ecosystems and the environment, agriculture's competition for water is increasingly strained. Agriculture remains the largest single-sector water user ( Hanak et al., 2016 ), even though California's farms have continually improved in water use efficiency over the past five decades ( Mitchell et al., 2016 ). Relevant to water management, predicted climate changes for the state include warming temperatures- which will increase crop-water demands, earlier snowmelt, increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events (e.g., storms, floods, droughts), and sea level rise, which may contribute to saltwater intrusion into freshwater resources and salinization of low elevation lands in the Central Valley ( Weare, 2009 ; Marston and Konar, 2017 );( Pathak et al., 2018 ).

Climate models also predict rising average temperatures, which will have multiple negative impacts on agriculture: reduction in winter chill hours that are required by some fruit and nut crops; heat stress on farm workers and livestock; and expansion of pest and weed ranges, along with introduction of new tropical pests. Together with constrained water resources, these climate-induced changes are expected to negatively impact the productivity of both crop and livestock operations. Given California's predominant share of production of a number of agricultural commodities, this has implications for both U.S. and global food systems, challenging the third pillar of CSA, food security ( Jackson et al., 2012 ).

Climate Mitigation: A Catalyst for CSA

Mitigation of GHG emissions is the anchor to California's CSA policy framework and was launched under the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32). This law was the first in the U.S. to regulate GHG emissions, setting a reduction target to reach 1990 emissions levels by 2020. Subsequent refinements and extension of this law expanded the target to 40 percent lower than 1990 emission levels by 2030. Recognizing that climate mitigation cuts across many sectors, the law requires collaborative governance that integrates multiple state agencies and non-governmental stakeholders in developing a multi-year “Scoping Plan” (“Assembly Bill 32 Overview,” 2014). This Scoping Plan process provides an institutionalized structure for stakeholder engagement as well as the best attempt to coordinate and negotiate across multiple governmental agencies to address cross-sectoral synergies and trade-offs. A potential critique of many policy coordination efforts is their reliance on the formation of informal institutions that depend on norms of information sharing and collaboration to achieve coordination in their outcomes. This often falls short in overcoming bureaucratic incentives that can drive competition and fragmented policy development ( Ostrom, 2010 ). In the California case, the state legislature mandated the development of the Scoping Plan which would set the approach the state agencies would take to reach the GHG emissions reduction target. This provides a formal process for coordinated policy and program planning, illustrated below in terms of the joint implementation and funding of some CSA incentive programs across agencies. The Plan is required to be updated every 5 years and has been designed as a collaborative process to gather stakeholder input from many diverse sectors at multiple stages throughout the process, again codifying and strengthening the opportunities for collaboration and information sharing as a required piece of the implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act.

Agricultural production did not originally fall under the regulatory caps of the Global Warming Solutions Act, though food and beverage processing industries did. Instead, the uptake and implementation of on-farm CSA practices are centered around incentive-based voluntary adoption by farmers. Subsequent laws have however directly regulated mitigation of methane emissions from dairy production. The most recent methane law, Senate Bill 1383, requires a 40 percent reduction in methane emissions from dairies by 2030 ( California Air Resources Board, 2018b ). Unlike the Global Warming Solutions Act, this law requires implementation of emission reduction strategies from the dairy industry. This regulatory approach created significant anxiety over the continued economic competitiveness of California diaries given the high costs of mitigation strategies such as dairy digester technologies. To address these potential trade-offs between mitigation and agricultural incomes, the state is attempting to facilitate the transition by providing a significant investment in incentive and cost-share programs and increased research on manure management strategies. The methane law also required the formation of a dairy and livestock working group to engage stakeholders and experts in developing solutions that best accomplish emissions reductions while minimizing economic and social impacts. This working group requirement again demonstrates the state's efforts to apply collaborative governance principles and engage diverse actors in the policy making process to create shared governance solutions, where possible. It is notable that the state incentives directed toward this sector represent a significant portion of the overall public investments in CSA in California, reflecting both the relative contribution of the dairy sector to California's agricultural GHG emissions, its importance as the largest share of agricultural revenue, and its relatively large political influence.

In addition to creating the foundation for bold climate mitigation, the Global Warming Solutions Act was operationalized through the creation of a Cap and Trade market. The sales of carbon credits under this regulated market has generated substantial new public revenue to fund projects that further reduce or sequester carbon, including a number of initiatives within the agricultural sector. To date, approximately $6.1 billion from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund have been allocated by the state legislature to state agencies to operate these programs. Approximately $612 million (~10 percent) of that has been allocated to agriculturally-relevant programs ( California Air Resources Board, 2018a ). These range from grants to upgrade irrigation and water distribution systems, purchasing agricultural land conservation easements, installing dairy digesters and developing alternative manure management strategies, incentivizing on-farm energy improvements and, most recently, designing a healthy soils program; See Table 1 which summarizes these programs ( California Air Resources Board, 2018a ).

Table 1 . Summary of CSA incentive programs.

In order to be eligible to receive Cap and Trade monies, all of these programs must demonstrate GHG emissions reductions. Under the leadership of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and with the engagement and advocacy of non-governmental stakeholders and the agricultural community, many of the programs have been strategically designed to provide co-benefits that increase adaptation and resilience across the agricultural sector; in other words, attempting to bring in the other CSA goals through a mitigation-oriented framework In many cases, this alignment is facilitated by interagency collaboration in the program design. Examples of this can be seen in the State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program (SWEEP), which funds irrigation infrastructure updates to install more energy and water efficient pumps and distribution systems (e.g., drip irrigation), that both reach mitigation goals by reducing energy usage and adaptation goals by decreasing water demand and evapotranspiration. Correspondingly, SWEEP is a collaborative effort of two state agencies, CDFA and the Department of Water Resources. Additionally, the Healthy Soils Initiative is designed to allow for further synergies across mitigation, adaptation and productivity goals, by supporting soil practices that build soil organic matter (i.e., sequester atmospheric carbon), while simultaneously supporting water and nutrient retention (i.e., adapt to differ water and climate patterns) and having the potential to positively increase crop quality and yields (i.e., support productivity) ( California Climate and Agriculture Network, 2017 ). The Air Resources Board collaborated with CDFA in the design of the Healthy Soils Initiative. The Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation (SALC) Program helps to conserve productive agricultural lands from being developed in urban or suburban sprawl, which achieves both mitigation through avoidance of higher average GHG footprints of urban/suburban lands, and helps to ensure sustained food production on productive, fertile lands. SALC is product of an interagency council that explicitly aims to coordinate policies with multi-sector implications and stakeholders. Finally, in addition to the Dairy Digester Research and Development Program which funds installation of manure digesters, the state also developed the Alternative Manure Management Program to provide research and incentive dollars for digester-alternative strategies for dairies, many of which have additional benefits such as building soil health or reducing air and water pollution. The selection and design of these CSA programs was intended to identify and amplify the synergies that do stretch across mitigation-adaptation-productivity goals ( Figure 1 ). However, in the last couple of years, the state legislature has opted to focus Cap and Trade dollar allocations toward programs that have a strict mitigation-only focus (e.g., Dairy Digesters and FARMER program) where regulatory compliance is easier to track and clear GHG reduction benefits are more easily measured, rather than toward the programs that have multiple co-benefits in addition to their mitigation contributions (i.e., reduced funding for Healthy Soils Initiative and SWEEP in 2017 and 2018). In this sense, the rigidity in the funding mechanism that requires a focus on mitigation may serve to constrain and reduce the agricultural sector's ability to implement robust and diverse approaches to CSA that aim to touch all three CSA goals. Furthermore, another large constraining factor is the process of yearly, and oftentimes variable, allocations of the Cap and Trade money by the state legislature. This variability creates instability and uncertainty in the sustainment of many of these CSA initiatives into the future. From a complex governance perspective, this speaks to common challenges: limited attention from policy makers to address one issue at a time, the politics of funding allocations, and the necessity of “bean counting” toward reaching the public policy objective on hand– in this case, GHG emission reductions.

Figure 1 . Timeline of evolution of CSA policy environment. This figure provides a brief timeline enumerating key events in the development of multiple CSA policy initiatives in California. While not comprehensive of all initiatives discussed here, this shows how key events overlapped in time with other policy or environmental phenomena.

Finally, California's Cap and Trade market allows for issuance of agricultural carbon offsets to incentivize reductions in GHGs from changes in crop and livestock management practices. To date, the state has approved only two offset protocols: altered rice production ( California Air Resources Board, 2015 ) and installation of dairy digesters ( California Air Resources Board, 2014 ), with protocols for fertilizer management and conservation of grasslands under discussion. Over 5 million tons of carbon credits have been issued for dairy digesters to date, while crop-based credits have lagged significantly. Determining appropriate baselines, covering registration costs, and documenting and verifying additionality of carbon offsets in highly variable cropping systems can cost up to $20,000 per tCO 2 ( Proville et al., 2018 ). Give the relatively small size of these projects (on average, 0.25 to 2 tons of carbon per acre), they are often not economically viable incentives ( Smith and Parkhurst, 2018 ). Thus, utilization of the rice protocol and development of additional crop protocols has stalled. As land management-based offset protocols become more commonplace, there may be opportunity to streamline the documentation and verification processes, such that costs can be decreased to the point where offsets provide enough of a financial incentive to motivate farm management changes.

Sustainable Water Management: A Cornerstone to California CSA

Perhaps the largest challenge for achieving climate-smart agriculture in California is the interconnectivity between the state's agricultural production and water availability. Agriculture uses on average 80 percent of the surface water dedicated to human use (i.e., municipal and agricultural uses) ( Mount et al., 2015 ) to irrigate an estimated 9 million acres of cropland. During the 2012–2016 severe drought, more than half a million acres under production were fallowed as a result of reduced water allocations (California Department of Water Resources; Howitt et al., 2014 ). Groundwater pumping to meet irrigation demands increased dramatically to compensate for surface water losses, and as a result aquifer levels dropped and salinity became more concentrated ( Howitt et al., 2014 ; Hanak et al., 2016 ; NASA, 2017 ). The drought was costly to the state's agricultural sector, resulting in the loss of an estimated $2.7 billion in revenue in 2015 and an estimate 21,000 jobs, devastating many people's livelihoods that are dependent on agriculture ( Howitt et al., 2014 ). This extreme event may have served as an important catalyst in motivating the state government and agricultural industry to think about and prepare more seriously for the impacts that climate change may have on agricultural production.

Improving agricultural water use efficiency is one strategy for addressing increasingly limited water resources. Water delivery and irrigation systems in California have continually improved in efficiency over the last fifty years, as local irrigation management districts have updated infrastructure, built more flexibility into water delivery schedules and farmers have adopted micro-sprinkler and drip irrigation systems ( Ayars et al., 2015 ; Hanak et al., 2016 ). These efficiencies have led to increased economic productivity per unit of water applied: for example, the average economic productivity of agricultural water in the 1960s was $420 per acre-foot of water. By the 2000s, value had exceeded $700 per acre-foot (DWR Bulletin 160). Of equal note, research has shown that shifting to more efficient irrigation, from flood to subsurface drip systems for example, can significantly reduce soil-based nitrous oxide emissions, resulting in additional climate mitigation benefits ( Kennedy et al., 2013 ).

As discussed briefly above, the SWEEP incentive program was established during the drought of 2012–2016 to assist the agricultural sector in adapting to water supply reductions by funding incentives to upgrade groundwater pumps, install drip or micro-irrigation systems, improve water storage and recycling capacity, install soil moisture monitoring sensors, and increase efficiency in irrigation scheduling. While initially framed as drought relief to the agricultural sector, the SWEEP program has continued under funding from the state's cap and trade revenue. As of 2018, $66 million have been allocated, with an additional $31.5 million in co-financing b y farmers and water districts, to establish projects that cover more than 100,000 acres. These projects are estimated to generate the equivalent GHG savings of removing 15,000 cars off the road and save over 28 billion gallons of water per year. SWEEP is an example of a program aiming to address all three CSA goals and represents coordinated action across agencies with different goals. While mitigating emissions and assisting farmers to adapt to water restrictions, it also helps growers overcome cost-prohibitive up-front capital investments. In addition to SWEEP, CDFA and the Department of Water Resources have also coordinated to build a jointly-funded pilot program that aims to enhance and upgrade water conveyance and delivery systems.

These state-led efforts to increase efficiency at many points throughout the system have not been free of unintended social and environmental costs. The eligibility requirements and resources required for application to these (as well as the other) incentive programs have constrained the participation of smaller and more poorly resourced farmers. In order to achieve substantial water efficiency improvements across the entire agricultural sector, it will be important for programs like SWEEP to reach growers who are slower to adopt new technology or less likely to be involved in traditional incentive program networks facilitated by federal and local conservation extension staff. The 2017 Farmer Equity Act (Assembly Bill 1348) begins to acknowledge this inequity in access to state CSA resources, and address this and other social consequences of the evolving CSA policy framework. The Act acknowledges historical inequities in the agricultural sector, including exclusion from land and water rights and lack of ability to participate in policy processes. Furthermore, the Act acknowledges the concern that disadvantaged farmers that are the least-resourced will be the ones who are most vulnerable to experiencing climate change impacts. Additionally, the 2018 extension of the Cannella Environmental Farming Act (Assembly Bill 2377) requires that a portion of the SWEEP budget, as well as that of the Healthy Soils Program and Alternative Manure Management Program, be spent on technical assistance programs that serve small and mid-sized farms, as well as socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. These are important steps in California's development of CSA policy as it represents an acknowledgment of the interconnectedness between social, political and economic systems at play that directly affect farmers' abilities to participate and benefit from state-funded CSA efforts.

In addition to social impacts, the adoption of drip irrigation systems have had complex environmental impacts. Conversion to drip irrigation has clear GHG reduction benefits due to energy-savings and water efficiency benefits, but this efficiency simultaneously reduces rates of natural groundwater recharge that occurs from field level inefficiencies and reduces return flows available for downstream users. Reduced groundwater recharge, combined with an increased reliance on groundwater for irrigation during dry years and a hardened annual water demand due to the increase of perennial tree crops, has resulted in unprecedented rates of groundwater withdrawal, aquifer storage reduction and subsidence of the land's surface ( Hanak and Lund, 2015 ). Rebalancing water resources will require significant attention dedicated to intentional groundwater recharge.

This efficiency-depletion trade-off became starkly clear during the 2012–2016 2011–2015 drought when both irrigation and drinking water wells across the state ran dry from over-pumping. In response in 2014, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was passed by the California Legislature with broad stakeholder support, as a regulatory effort to require groundwater basin sustainability planning and replenishment of over-extracted groundwater basins by 2050. In addition to being a significant step toward sustainable water reform, SGMA also has significant impact on the development of CSA in California. The law adopts a local governance structure allowing local and regional stakeholders in each groundwater basin to form new decision-making entities who will prepare and implement groundwater sustainability plans. These sustainability plans must define which strategies will be used to restore aquifer levels to a state-determined sustainable level, potentially including water pumping limitations or pumping permit trading markets ( Kiparsky et al., 2017 ). Agricultural stakeholders across the state are participating as key players shaping these plans and advocating to ensure that agricultural water needs are heard ( Niles and Wagner, 2017 ). Farms of all scales will eventually be required to adapt to meet the locally determined sustainability plans, which may impose higher pumping operational and monitoring costs, or may assign a pricing structure to water altogether. The net impact may constrain crop acreage and crop type across the state in a dramatic way, as well as impact small-scale or socially-disadvantaged farmers who don't have access to the same financial and political resources to be able to compete in new water markets ( Rudnick et al., 2016 ). In this case, SGMA requires a tradeoff between CSA goals of agricultural productivity in the short term, by limiting water access, and longer term adaptation, by sustaining water resources.

State water quality regulations may also provide an indirect but strong CSA driver by requiring improved nitrogen fertilizer management. In 2003, the state implemented the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, which placed pollution limits on agricultural runoff carrying excess nutrient loads to surface water. In 2012, protections were extended to incorporate groundwater concerns from nitrogen leaching (Central Valley Regional Board). A co-benefit of addressing water contamination will likely be mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions, from reduced denitrification of excess fertilizer. Research shows that high levels of nitrates contaminate groundwater basins in agriculturally intensive regions across the state ( Harter et al., 2012 , 2016 ), threatening access to clean drinking water and thus the health of the communities that live and work in these regions– particularly the socially and economically disadvantaged communities who are dependent on groundwater for their drinking water ( Balazs et al., 2011 ). The relationship between groundwater quality and groundwater quantity are evermore necessary to understand as SGMA will motivate and in many regions incentivize managed aquifer recharge projects. These projects must be carefully designed and monitored, especially when occurring on historically cultivated or fallowed agricultural lands that have the potential to leach nitrogen fertilizers (or legacy fertilizers that have already built up in the soil profile), or where they may occur in close proximity to groundwater-dependent drinking water systems. All of these interactions cut across climate, water quality, water quantity, and environmental justice issues, demonstrating the necessity to understand linkages and interdependencies in both the biophysical and socio-political aspects of the complex system in which CSA is being implemented, in order to promote just and equitable CSA transformations.

In summary, California's agricultural sector has benefited from multiple incentive programs related to water adaptations in the short term; however, policies such as SGMA and the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, aimed at longer-term sustainable management of water resources, combined with climate predictions, will likely require trade-offs between productivity and profitability of California's agricultural lands, and the move toward a sustainable and equitable water supply. Constraints may include reductions in total crop acreage across the state and changes in the types or distribution of crops that are produced. In turn, these changes could have implications for both national and international food markets due to California's significant production of a number of food commodities. At the same time, the resilience of the agricultural industry itself is dependent upon sustainable water management. Moreover, the resilience and health of the other water users in agricultural regions is essential to maintaining health and equity for communities who both serve and are dependent on this food system. As a result of climate change, California and other dry climates around the world may continue to experience high variability in annual precipitation patterns and may be forced to decrease their reliance on historically-timed snowmelt for surface water and groundwater recharge. Thus, policies that promote long-term resource planning and sustainable use of essential freshwater resources are pertinent to the continued success of agricultural operations in these climates. These adaptations will require consideration of the complex interactions that occur across overlapping social and environmental issues, some of which we have identified here.

Role of Research and Technology Development

California has a well-established public research system comprised of universities, experiment stations, and federal agriculture research facilities to address the productivity of crop and livestock production. From a climate perspective, while globally representative of Mediterranean climates, the agriculture in California is distinct within the U.S. Both the crops and climatic conditions differ substantially from annual grain crops which dominate the rest of U.S. agricultural acreage. Given these differences, state agencies could not rely on research conducted in other U.S. regions to determine what practices mitigate emissions or promote adaptation under California's unique conditions. To ensure continued productivity in the face of climate change, CDFA convened the Climate Change Consortium for Specialty Crops in 2011 ( California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2018 ). The findings of this consortium highlighted the productivity challenges due to changing temperatures, pest pressures, and water availability. Execution of CSA research and programs targeted these subnational priorities, while also leveraging national funding and technical tools where possible, thus expanding the scope of research beyond state funding alone. In addition, CDFA has invested resources in building collaborations with other countries around the world that have similar Mediterranean climates and grow similar crops, including Israel, Australia and Chile, to name a few. The cross-national collaborations encouraged information and technology sharing between government entities, research scientists, private enterprises and producers in both countries, as well as shared learning efforts to jointly tackle questions about the agricultural impacts of future climate conditions ( California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2018 ).

The state's strong policy emphasis on reduction of GHG emissions has led to more extensive study of the climate mitigation and sequestration potential in California's cropping and livestock systems, than in many other regions across the U.S. Since passage of AB32, more than 50 research studies have been conducted in California to identify and quantify mitigation practices and identify co-benefits for adaptation or other environmental services ( Byrnes et al., 2017 ). Similar to the interagency nature of California's CSA policy environment, mitigation research was funded by several agencies, including the Department of Energy and the California Air Resources Board, in addition to the Department of Food and Agriculture. The findings of some of these studies, such as long-term research on the impact of conservation tillage on GHG emissions, reveal important differences between California and other regions, which must be accounted for before exporting California-designed CSA approaches to other regions ( Six et al., 2004 ). This underlines the need for research and comparative studies to fine-tune CSA solutions that are context-specific and acknowledge the differences across agroecosystems. CSA efforts should not assume a “one size fits all” mentality across variable cropping systems and climates. Similarly, as water figures more prominently in CSA for California and other dry agricultural regions, research and technological innovations in water management practices are central to meeting CSA goals. This includes research and technology development on efficient irrigation technology, groundwater aquifer recharge on agricultural lands, and improved water filtration through soil and vegetative strips are central to meeting CSA goals ( Byrnes et al., 2017 ; Wolf et al., 2017 ; Dahlke et al., 2018 ).

Lastly, with over $6.5 billion in private investment from 2014–2017 in precision farming tools ( Zuckerberg and Kennes, 2017 ), commercial agricultural technology promises to contribute to CSA, through optimizing nutrient management, improving efficient water use management, and developing new digester technologies to reduce methane emissions from livestock waste ( Balafoutis et al., 2017 ). With water, fertilizer leaching, and dairy emissions coming under regulation in California, farmers may turn to technological solutions to meet their regulatory requirements and to keep production competitive in global markets. Evidence of the important role of technology in meeting the challenge of regulatory, climate, and market challenges is seen in the recent investments by some grower organizations and food companies in new agtech start-ups (e.g., https://agfundernews.com/western-growers-launches-4m-agtech-fund.html , https://www.thepacker.com/article/taylor-farms-joins-startup-accelerator-advance-ag-tech ).

Summary of CSA in California and Actionable Recommendations

While California represents a subnational case for CSA, the size and scope of the state's agricultural sector and the challenges its agriculture faces from climate change are globally relevant. The agricultural sector plays a significant role in supplying both domestic and global commodity markets, yet contributes a relatively small proportion of both the state's total economic activity and GHG emissions.

As we have summarized, California's bold commitment to GHG emissions reductions in the coming decades has provided the catalyst to spur much of the public investment in CSA. The resulting publicly funded incentive programs have both promoted voluntary adoption of climate-friendly farming practices and have acted to balance the negative economic impacts of increased regulation of the agricultural sector. From a political angle, these incentive dollars may have also contributed to earning greater political support from agricultural organizations for climate change action. While every CSA program funded by Cap and Trade revenue must demonstrate emission reductions or carbon offsets, some such as SWEEP, Healthy Soils, and the dairy programs also have co-benefits for adaptation or address trade-offs for the economic productivity goals of CSA. There is a growing body of literature on farmer behavior toward climate change that would support these types of multi-benefit programs. A number of studies have shown that there is less support from farmers for mitigation-only actions: the sense of climate impact risk is low, while the benefits of mitigation actions are uncertain and accrue globally, rather than locally ( Arbuckle et al., 2015 ; Prokopy et al., 2015 ). We anticipate that California's investment in these programs that incentivize practices that also have multiple co-benefits will increase farmer buy-in and participation overall. However, the most recent Cap and Trade funding allocations, demonstrate that short-term funding cycles and inconsistency in funding from year to year can decrease these co-benefits that may take many years of practice implementation to accrue.

In addition to the climate mitigation framework, California's state government and key stakeholder groups, have built a stronger focus around the water impacts that are expected to present the greatest climate challenge to the agricultural sector. This is significant, as water management is seldom the focus of global CSA agendas. Yet, improved irrigation and water management are critical agricultural adaptations in the context of less predictable precipitation patterns associated with climate projections for many agricultural regions ( Bradshaw et al., 2004 ; Pathak et al., 2018 ). As the World Bank noted, water scarcity exacerbated by climate change could reduce economic growth rates by up to six percent in countries in Africa and South Asia, where agriculture remains a significant economic driver ( World Bank, 2016 ). From a productivity and food security lens, the third pillar of CSA, irrigated farms are twice as productive as rainfed systems on average across the globe ( Rockström et al., 2009 ). Water management strategies like deficit irrigation may provide a rare “triple wins” opportunity in this realm, by reducing water use (adaptation) and subsequently reducing energy demand embedded in irrigation (GHG mitigation), while sustaining high crop yields (productivity). Studies in multiple cropping systems in California show that regulated deficit irrigation can be used to reduce water consumption by 20 percent or more without significant decreases in productivity ( Johnstone et al., 2005 ; Goldhamer et al., 2006 ). Thus, diffusion of conservation irrigation strategies and water storage technologies that enhance efficiency, build drought resilience by sustaining irrigation capacity through dry periods, and sustain crop yields will be important tools to address the productivity and adaptation pillars of CSA, with potential for mitigation benefits as well, as demonstrated with the deficit irrigation example. Technological solutions do not come without costs, however, and thus should be implemented with care. As discussed in California for example, increased efficiency from drip irrigation technologies contributed to decreased groundwater recharge rates, while simultaneously facilitating a hardened water demand by permitting densely-planted perennial tree crops that increased annual water budgets, resulting in severe depletion of groundwater reserves. As this case study demonstrates, it is thus necessary for technological advancements to occur in coincidence with considerations of the complex resource governance structures in place and considerations of how new practices will affect the interconnected resource system. Tackling sustainable water management through both improvements in agricultural water efficiency and basin scale sustainable management policies will be critical to achieving CSA both in California, and in many other drought-vulnerable climates worldwide.

Finally, California's 2012–2016 drought may have heightened the perceptions of climate risks by the agricultural sector. While the drought impacts were severe and costly to many, “focusing events” like this drought, can draw in attention and support from a wide range of stakeholders to advance the development of CSA strategies. This focused attention contributes to building a toolbox of new solutions that can be implemented to help the sector respond to changing climate conditions. In California, these collaborative efforts to develop CSA strategies that stretch across sectors can be seen in the research efforts funded by multiple state agencies, as well as private industry and non-governmental actors, the integrative incentive programs that achieve multiple mitigation, adaptation and productivity benefits, and the important regulatory measures that have gained support from diverse interest groups. Expanding the network of stakeholders that are involved in and support CSA approaches is an important component for increasing CSA-practice adoption rates. For CSA strategies to effectively achieve large-scale transformation, practices will need to be widely adopted by individual farmers; thus understanding which stakeholders are most influential in farmer behavior and ensuring they are included in CSA discussions will be an important step in broadening the reach of these initiatives.

To remain a global agricultural leader, California agriculture will have to continue adapting to changing climate conditions, resource availability and competitive global markets. Climate smart agriculture itself offers a globally-recognizable framework to demonstrate how agriculture and climate intersect and suggest how agriculture can contribute to mitigation, adaptation, and productivity goals going forward. California plays an important role in these global CSA discussions, as it is a major producer of hundreds of specialty crops, exemplifies the dry climate conditions that typify numerous agricultural regions around the world, and houses major research and technology innovation sectors that support the development of many innovative CSA solutions.

The political economy of California agriculture also illustrates global trends that will impact CSA policy. While the state ranks as an agricultural powerhouse, agriculture is a declining percent of the state economy and a declining percent of the labor force. As the state's economy and population grow and diversify outside of agriculture, public policy goals have also changed and political attention has been directed toward non-farm priorities, including environmental health and social and environmental justice. Similar trends toward declining shares of agriculture in economies and labor forces are occurring globally, as countries transition from developing to middle and high income economies, and mechanization becomes more widespread in agricultural production systems ( World Bank, 2007 ).

The specific means by which various agricultural players will contribute to meeting CSA goals both within and outside of California will likely change over time, and thus programs that promote specific farming practices or resource governance approaches should be designed to be adaptable and allow for policy learning. We intend for this case study on the development of California's CSA initiatives to provide a perspective on how multiple actors have coordinated in one system to develop integrative mitigation and adaptation initiatives that are appropriate for multiple cropping systems in various biophysical conditions across the state. We anticipate that as both social and environmental conditions change in California, these initiatives will need to adapt to maintain relevancy. We also discuss where there have been overlapping or conflicting goals that have had to be reconciled, or have led to unintended and undesirable consequences. The triple wins narrative frequently posited with CSA programs is not always possible to achieve. Indeed, as our case study shows, there are in fact very few examples of policies or initiatives that achieve all three CSA pillars through a single effort. Rather, we believe it is more likely that these three simultaneous goals will likely be met via disparate efforts, increasing the likelihood that tradeoff decisions may need to be faced. As CSA initiatives develop in other locations, we emphasize the importance of taking an integrative systems approach to understanding how various components of climate and agriculture intersect and considering carefully how to reconcile these conflicting interests. Finally, an important direction moving forward will be to consider how CSA initiatives integrate with aspects of the cultural and social institutions that operate in different contexts and shape what type of agriculture is conducted, who participates in agriculture, and what agricultural outputs are produced. This integration will be crucial for CSA-oriented initiatives to pose solutions that recognize the needs, wants and capacities of the communities dependent on the very agricultural systems that are under consideration.

Author Contributions

JL initiated case study in coincidence with participation in the Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture. Both JL and JR conducted review of relevant state policies and programs and wrote and edited manuscript text.

This project was supported by the World Food Center at the University of California Davis.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jeanne Merril at CalCAN, Amrith Gunasekara and Jenny Lester-Moffit at CDFA, Robert Parkhurst at the Environmental Defense Fund, and Mark Lubell at University of California Davis for their thoughtful and insightful feedback through the development of this project.

Arbuckle, J. G., Morton, L. W., and Hobbs, J. (2015). Understanding farmer perspectives on climate change adaptation and mitigation. Environ. Behav. 47, 205–234. doi: 10.1177/0013916513503832.

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arrow, K. J., Ehrlich, P. R., and Levin, S. A. (2014). “Some perspectives on linked ecosystems and socioeconomic systems,” in Enviornment and Development Economics: Essays in Honor of Sir Partha Dasgumpta , eds S. Barrett, K.-G. Maler, and E. Maskin (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 301–315.

Assembly Bill 32 Overview (2014). Retrieved from https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm (accessed October 31, 2018).

Ayars, J. E., Fulton, A., and Taylor, B. (2015). Subsurface drip irrigation in California-Here to stay? Agric. Water Manage. 157, 39–47. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2015.01.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Balafoutis, A., Beck, B., Fountas, S., Vangeyte, J., van der Wal, T., Soto, I., et al. (2017). Precision agriculture technologies positively contributing to GHG emissions mitigation, farm productivity and economics. Sustainability 9:1339. doi: 10.3390/su9081339

Balazs, C., Morello-Frosch, R., Hubbard, A., and Ray, I. (2011). Social disparities in nitrate contaminated drinking water in California's San Joaquin Valley. Environ. Health Perspect. 119, 1272–1278. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1002878

Bodin, Ö., and Crona, B. I. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Glob. Environ. Change 19, 366–374. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002

Bradshaw, B. E. N., Dolan, H., and Smit, B. (2004). Farm-level adaptation to climatic variability and change: crop diversification in the Canadian prairies. Clim. Change 61, 119–141. doi: 10.1007/s10584-004-0710-z

Byrnes, R., Eviner, V., Kebreab, E., Horwath, W. R., Jackson, L., Jenkins, B. M., et al. (2017). Review of research to inform California's climate scoping plan: agriculture and working lands. Calif. Agric. 71, 160–168. doi: 10.3733/ca.2017a0031

California Air Resources Board (2014). Compliance Offset Protocol Livestock Projects: Capturing and Destroying Methane from Manure Management Systems. Sacramento, CA: California Air Resources Board.

California Air Resources Board (2015). Compliance Offset Protocol Rice Cultivation Projects. California Air Resources Board.

California Air Resources Board (2017a). California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory- 2017 Edition. California Air Resources Board.

California Air Resources Board (2017b). California Climate Investments 2018 Annual Report. Available online at: http://caclimateinvestments.ca.gov (accessed October 31, 2018).

California Air Resources Board (2018a). California Climate Investments: Appropriations from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. California Climate Investments Program 31 August 2018. Available online at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/summary_appropriation_table_8_31_18.pdf (accessed October 31, 2018).

California Air Resources Board (2018b). Reducing Short Lived Climate Pollutants.

Google Scholar

California Climate Agriculture Network (2017). Overview of Climate Smart Agriculture. Retrieved from http://calclimateag.org/climatesmartag/ (accessed October 31, 2018).

California Department of Food and Agriculture (2018). California Agricultural Statistics Review 2017–2018. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Food and Agriculture.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. (2016). California Agricultural Statistics Review 2015–2016. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Water Resources. “Drought.” Water Basics. Available online at: http://www.water.ca.gov/Water-Basics/Drought (accessed January 20, 2019).

Dahlke, H. E., LaHue, G. T., Mautner, M. R., Murphy, N. P., Patterson, N. K., Waterhouse, H., et al. (2018). “Managed aquifer recharge as a tool to enhance sustainable groundwater management in California: examples from field and modeling studies,” in Advances in Chemical Pollution, Environmental Management and Protection , Vol. 3 (Elsevier), 215–275. doi: 10.1016/bs.apmp.2018.07.003

DG Agriculture and Rural Development- Farm Economics Unit (2018). European Commission Statistical Fact. Brussel: European Commission; Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development.

Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., et al. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342. doi: 10.1038/nature10452.

Gallopín, G. C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Glob. Environ. Change 16, 293–303. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.004

Goldhamer, D. A., Viveros, M., and Salinas, M. (2006). Regulated deficit irrigation in almonds: effects of variations in applied water and stress timing on yield and yield components. Irrigat. Sci. 24, 101–114. doi: 10.1007/s00271-005-0014-8

Hanak, E., Escriva-Bou, A., Howitt, R., Lund, J., Burt, C., Harter, T., et al. (2016). California Water: Water for Farms. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

Hanak, E., and Lund, J. (2015). Water for Farms. Sacramento, CA: Public Policy Institute of California; Water Policy Center.

Harter, T., Dzurella, K., Kourakos, G., Bell, A., King, A., and Hollander, A. (2016). Nitrogen Fertilizer Loading to Groundwater in the Central Valley.

Harter, T., Lund, J. R., Darby, J., Fogg, G., Howitt, R., Jessoe, K., et al. (2012). Addressing Nitrate in California's Drinking Water: With a Focus on Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley Groundwater. Report for the California State Water Resources Control Board Report to the Legislature. California Nitrate Project, Implementation of Senate Bill X2 1, Center forWatershed Sciences, University of California, Davis. Available online at: http://groundwaternitrate.ucdavis.edu/

Hooghe, L., and Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 97, 233–243. doi: 10.1017/S0003055403000649

Houllier, F. (2013). INRA Science and Impact Annual Report. Paris.

Howitt, R., Medellín-Azuara, J., MacEwan, D., Lund, J. R., and Sumner, D. (2014). Economic Analysis of the 2014 Drought for California Agriculture. Davis, CA: University of California; Center for Watershed Sciences.

Jackson, L., Haden, V. R., Wheeler, S., Hollander, A., Pearlman, J., O'Geen, T., et al. (2012). Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in California Agriculture. Whitepaper commissioned for California Energy Commission: CEC-500-2012-031. Davis, CA: University of California.

Johnstone, P. R., Hartz, T. K., LeStrange, M., Nunez, J. J., and Miyao, E. M. (2005). Managing fruit soluble solids with late-season deficit irrigation in drip-irrigated processing tomato production. HortScience 40, 1857–1861. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.40.6.1857

Kennedy, T. L., Suddick, E. C., and Six, J. (2013). Reduced nitrous oxide emissions and increased yields in California tomato cropping systems under drip irrigation and fertigation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 170, 16–27. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.02.002

Kiparsky, M., Milman, A., Owen, D., and Fisher, A. (2017). The importance of institutional design for distributed local-level governance of groundwater: the case of California's sustainable groundwater management act. Water 9:755. doi: 10.3390/w9100755

Levin, S. A. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems 1, 431–436.

Lipper, L., Thornton, P., Campbell, B. M., Baedeker, T., Braimoh, A., Bwalya, M., et al. (2014). Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 1068–1072. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2437

Marston, L., and Konar, M. (2017). Drought impacts to water footprints and virtual water transfers of the Central Valley of California. Water Resour. Res. 53, 5756–5773. doi: 10.1002/2016WR020251

Mitchell, J. P., Shrestha, A., Hollingsworth, J., Munk, D., Hembree, K. J., and Turini, T. A. (2016). Precision overhead irrigation is suitable for several Central Valley crops. Calif. Agric. 70, 62–70. doi: 10.3733/ca.v070n02p62

Mount, J., Hanak, E., Chappelle, C., Gray, B., Lund, J., Moyle, P., et al. (2015). Policy Priorities for Managing Drought , 1–10. Sacramento, CA: The Public Policy Institute of California.

NASA (2017). California's San Joaquin Valley is still sinking. Earth Obs. 29, 41–44. Available online at: https://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=89761 (accessed October 31, 2018).

Niles, M., and Wagner, C. (2017). Farmers share their perspectives on California water management and the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Calif. Agric. 72, 38–43. doi: 10.3733/ca.2017a0040

Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325, 419–422. doi: 10.1126/science.1172133

Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am. Econ. Rev. 100, 641–672. doi: 10.1257/aer.100.3.641

Pathak, T., Maskey, M., Dahlberg, J., Kearns, F., Bali, K., and Zaccaria, D. (2018). Climate change trends and impacts on California agriculture: a detailed review. Agronomy 8:25. doi: 10.3390/agronomy8030025

Prokopy, L. S., Arbuckle, J. G., Barnes, A. P., Haden, V. R., Hogan, A., Niles, M. T., et al. (2015). Farmers and climate change: a cross-national comparison of beliefs and risk perceptions in high-income countries. Environ. Manage. 56, 492–504. doi: 10.1007/s00267-015-0504-2

Proville, J., Parkhurst, R., Koller, S., Kroopf, S., Baker, J., and Salas, W. A. (2018). Agricultural offset potential in the United States: economic and geospatial insights. SocArXiv doi: 10.31235/osf.io/zea8g

Rockström, J., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Hoff, H., Rost, S., and Gerten, D. (2009). Future water availability for global food production: the potential of green water for increasing resilience to global change. Water Resour. Res. 45. doi: 10.1029/2007WR006767

Rudnick, J., DeVincentis, A., and Méndez-Barrientos, L. (2016). The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act challenges the diversity of California farms. Calif. Agric. 70, 169–173. doi: 10.3733/ca.2016a0015

Six, J., Bossuyt, H., Degryze, S., and Denef, K. (2004). A history of research on the link between (micro) aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter dynamics. Soil Till. Res. 79, 7–31. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2004.03.008

Smith, J., and Parkhurst, R. (2018) Opportunities for agricultural producers to participate in compliance voluntary carbon markets. SocArXiv doi: 10.31235/osf.io/yrfgz

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2017). Issues Relating to Agriculture , Bonn: FCCC/SBSTA.

Weare, B. C. (2009). How will changes in global climate influence California? Calif. Agric. 63, 1–9. doi: 10.3733/ca.v063n02p59

Wolf, K., Herrera, I., Tomich, T., and Scow, K. (2017). Long-term agricultural experiments inform the development of climate-smart agricultural practices. Calif. Agric. 71, 120–124. doi: 10.3733/ca.2017a0022

World Bank (2007). World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available online at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/5990

World Bank (2016). High and Dry: Climate Change, Water, and the Economy. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Zuckerberg, K., and Kennes, D. J. (2017). Bungle in the Ag Tech Jungle. Utrecht: Rabobank.

Keywords: climate smart agriculture, policy tools, enabling environment, synergies, tradeoffs

Citation: Lewis J and Rudnick J (2019) The Policy Enabling Environment for Climate Smart Agriculture: A Case Study of California. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 3:31. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00031

Received: 01 November 2018; Accepted: 16 April 2019; Published: 08 May 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Lewis and Rudnick. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Jessica Rudnick, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• How It Works
• Request a quote
• Get in touch

IoT in Agriculture: 9 Technology Use Cases for Smart Farming (and Challenges to Consider)

The article was updated on March 1, 2023.

With the growing adoption of the Internet of Things (IoT), connected devices have penetrated every aspect of our life , from health and fitness, home automation, automotive and logistics, to smart cities and industrial IoT.

Thus, it is only logical that IoT, connected devices, and automation would find its application in agriculture, and as such, tremendously improve nearly every facet of it. How could one still rely on horses and plows when self-driving cars and virtual reality are no longer a sci-fi fantasy but an everyday occurrence?

Farming has seen a number of technological transformations in the last decades, becoming more industrialized and technology-driven. By using various smart agriculture gadgets, farmers have gained better control over the process of raising livestock and growing crops, making it more predictable and improving its efficiency.

This, along with the growing consumer demand for agriculture products, has contributed to the increased proliferation of smart farming technologies worldwide. In 2022, the market share for IoT in agriculture reached $13.76 billion.

In this article, we will explore the IoT use cases in agriculture and examine their benefits. So, if you are considering investing into smart farming, or are planning to build an IoT solution for agriculture, dive right in.

• What is smart agriculture? The definition and market size

There are many ways to refer to modern agriculture. For example, AgriTech refers to the application of technology in agriculture in general.

Smart agriculture , on the other hand, is mostly used to denote the application of IoT solutions in agriculture. So what is smart agriculture using IoT? By using IoT sensors to collect environmental and machine metrics, farmers can make informed decisions, and improve just about every aspect of their work – from livestock to crop farming.

For example, by using smart agriculture sensors to monitor the state of crops, farmers can define exactly how many pesticides and fertilizers they have to use to reach optimal efficiency. The same applies to the smart farming definition.

Although smart agriculture IoT, as well as industrial IoT in general, aren’t as popular as consumer connected devices; yet the market is still very dynamic. The adoption of IoT solutions for agriculture is constantly growing.

Namely, COVID-19 has had a positive impact on IoT in the agriculture market share. Disruptions in the supply chain, and the shortage of qualified workers, has propelled its CAGR to 9,9%. In fact, as per recent reports, the smart framing market share is set to reach $28.56 billion by 2030.

At the same time, the global smart agriculture market size is expected to triple by 2025, reaching $15.3 billion (compared to being slightly over $5 billion back in 2016).

Because the market is still developing, there is still ample opportunity for businesses willing to join in. Building IoT products for agriculture within the coming years can set you apart as an early adopter, and as such, help you pave the way to success.

But why should you consider building an IoT application for agriculture in the first place?

The Benefits of smart farming: How’s IoT shaping agriculture

Technologies and IoT have the potential to transform agriculture in many aspects. Namely, there are 6 ways IoT can improve agriculture :

• Data, tons of data, collected by smart agriculture sensors, e.g. weather conditions, soil quality, crop’s growth progress or cattle’s health. This data can be used to track the state of your business in general as well as staff performance, equipment efficiency, etc.
• Better control over the internal processes and, as a result, lower production risks . The ability to foresee the output of your production allows you to plan for better product distribution. If you know exactly how much crops you are going to harvest, you can make sure your product won’t lie around unsold.
• Cost management and waste reduction thanks to the increased control over the production . Being able to see any anomalies in the crop growth or livestock health, you will be able to mitigate the risks of losing your yield.
• Increased business efficiency through process automation . By using smart devices, you can automate multiple processes across your production cycle, e.g. irrigation, fertilizing, or pest control.
• Enhanced product quality and volumes . Achieve better control over the production process and maintain higher standards of crop quality and growth capacity through automation.
• Reduced environmental footprint. Automation also carries environmental benefits. Smart farming technologies can cut down on the use of pesticides and fertilizer by offering more precise coverage, and thus, reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As a result, all of these factors can eventually lead to higher revenue .

Now that we have outlined how IoT can be advantageously applied in the sphere of agriculture, let’s take a look at how the listed benefits can find their application in real life.

• IoT use cases in agriculture (with examples)

There are many types of IoT sensors for agriculture as well as IoT applications in agriculture in general:

1. Monitoring of climate conditions

Probably the most popular smart agriculture gadgets are weather stations, combining various smart farming sensors. Located across the field, they collect various data from the environment and send it to the cloud. The provided measurements can be used to map the climate conditions, choose the appropriate crops, and take the required measures to improve their capacity (i.e. precision farming).

Some examples of such agriculture IoT devices are allMETEO , Smart Elements , and Pycno .

2. Greenhouse automation

Typically, farmers use manual intervention to control the greenhouse environment. The use of IoT sensors enables them to get accurate real-time information on greenhouse conditions such as lighting, temperature, soil condition, and humidity.

In addition to sourcing environmental data, weather stations can automatically adjust the conditions to match the given parameters. Specifically, greenhouse automation systems use a similar principle.

For instance, Farmapp and Growlink are also IoT agriculture products offering such capabilities among others.

3. Crop management

One more type of IoT product in agriculture and another element of precision farming are crop management devices. Just like weather stations, they should be placed in the field to collect data specific to crop farming; from temperature and precipitation to leaf water potential and overall crop health.

Thus, you can monitor your crop growth and any anomalies to effectively prevent any diseases or infestations that can harm your yield. Arable and Semios can serve as good representations of how this use case can be applied in real life.

4. Cattle monitoring and management

Just like crop monitoring, there are IoT agriculture sensors that can be attached to the animals on a farm to monitor their health and log performance. Livestock tracking and monitoring help collect data on stock health, well-being, and physical location.

For example, such sensors can identify sick animals so that farmers can separate them from the herd and avoid contamination. Using drones for real-time cattle tracking also helps farmers reduce staffing expenses. This works similarly to IoT devices for petcare .

For example, SCR by Allflex and Cowlar use smart agriculture sensors (collar tags) to deliver temperature, health, activity, and nutrition insights on each individual cow as well as collective information about the herd.

5. Precision farming

Also known as precision agriculture, precision farming is all about efficiency and making accurate data-driven decisions. It’s also one of the most widespread and effective applications of IoT in agriculture.

By using IoT sensors, farmers can collect a vast array of metrics on every facet of the field microclimate and ecosystem: lighting, temperature, soil condition, humidity, CO2 levels, and pest infections. This data enables farmers to estimate optimal amounts of water, fertilizers, and pesticides that their crops need, reduce expenses, and raise better and healthier crops.

For example, CropX builds IoT soil sensors that measure soil moisture, temperature, and electric conductivity enabling farmers to approach each crop’s unique needs individually. Combined with geospatial data, this technology helps create precise soil maps for each field. Mothive offers similar services, helping farmers reduce waste, improve yields, and increase farm sustainability.

6. Agricultural drones

Perhaps one of the most promising agritech advancements is the use of agricultural drones in smart farming. Also known as UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), drones are better equipped than airplanes and satellites to collect agricultural data. Apart from surveillance capabilities, drones can also perform a vast number of tasks that previously required human labor: planting crops, fighting pests and infections, agriculture spraying, crop monitoring, etc.

Read more: Why Use Agriculture Drones? Main Benefits and Best Practices

DroneSeed , for example, builds drones for planting trees in deforested areas. The use of such drones is 6 times more effective than human labor. A Sense Fly agriculture drone eBee SQ uses multispectral image analyses to estimate the health of crops and comes at an affordable price.

7. Predictive analytics for smart farming

Precision agriculture and predictive data analytics go hand in hand. While IoT and smart sensor technology are a goldmine for highly relevant real-time data, the use of data analytics helps farmers make sense of it and come up with important predictions: crop harvesting time, the risks of diseases and infestations, yield volume, etc. Data analytics tools help make farming, which is inherently highly dependent on weather conditions, more manageable, and predictable.

For example, the Crop Performance platform helps farmers access the volume and quality of yields in advance, as well as their vulnerability to unfavorable weather conditions, such as floods and drought. It also enables farmers to optimize the supply of water and nutrients for each crop and even select yield traits to improve quality.

Applied in agriculture, solutions like SoilScout enable farmers to save up to 50% irrigation water, reduce the loss of fertilizers caused by overwatering, and deliver actionable insights regardless of season or weather conditions.

8. End-to-end farm management systems

A more complex approach to IoT products in agriculture can be represented by the so-called farm productivity management systems. They usually include a number of agriculture IoT devices and sensors, installed on the premises as well as a powerful dashboard with analytical capabilities and in-built accounting/reporting features.

This offers remote farm monitoring capabilities and allows you to streamline most of the business operations. Similar solutions are represented by FarmLogs and Cropio .

In addition to the listed IoT agriculture use cases, some prominent opportunities include vehicle tracking (or even automation), storage management, logistics, etc.

9. Robots and autonomous machines

Robotic innovations also offer a promising future in the field of autonomous machines for agricultural purposes. Some farmers already use automated harvesters, tractors, and other machines and vehicles that can operate without a human controlling it. Such robots can complete repetitive, challenging, and labor-intensive tasks.

For instance, modern agrobots include automated tractors that can work on assigned routes, send notifications, start work at planned hours, etc. Such tractors are driverless and cut farmers’ labor costs. Bear Flag Robotics is one company that works on such technology at the moment.

In addition, smart farming also uses robots for planting seeds, weeding, and watering. The given jobs are very demanding and labor-intensive. Yet, robots, such as ones from Eco Robotics , can detect weeds or plant seeds using computer vision and AI technology. These agricultural robots work delicately, drastically reducing harm to the plants and the environment.

• Things to consider before developing your smart farming solution

As we can see, the use cases for IoT in agriculture are endless. There are many ways smart devices can help you increase your farm’s performance and revenue. However, agriculture IoT apps development is no easy task.

There are certain challenges you need to be aware of if you are considering investing into smart farming.

1. The hardware

To build an IoT solution for agriculture, you need to choose the sensors for your device (or create a custom one). Your choice will depend on the types of information you want to collect and the purpose of your solution in general.

In any case, the quality of your sensors is crucial to the success of your product: it will depend on the accuracy of the collected data and its reliability.

2. The brain

Data analytics should be at the core of every smart agriculture solution. The collected data itself will be of little help if you cannot make sense of it.

Thus, you need to have powerful data analytics capabilities and apply predictive algorithms and machine learning in order to obtain actionable insights based on the collected data.

3. The maintenance

Maintenance of your hardware is a challenge that is of primary importance for IoT products in agriculture, as the sensors are typically used in the field and can be easily damaged.

Thus, you need to make sure your hardware is durable and easy to maintain. Otherwise you will need to replace your sensors more often than you would like.

4. The mobility

Smart farming applications should be tailored for use in the field. A business owner or farm manager should be able to access the information on site or remotely via a smartphone or desktop computer.

Plus, each connected device should be autonomous and have enough wireless range to communicate with the other devices and send data to the central server.

Thank you for downloading the guide!

Free guide to your project budgeting.

Explore real-life examples and discover the ways to stay within your budget.

5. The infrastructure

To ensure that your smart farming application performs well (and to make sure it can handle the data load), you need a solid internal infrastructure.

Furthermore, your internal systems have to be secure. Failing to properly secure your system only increases the likeliness of someone breaking into it, stealing your data or even taking control of your autonomous tractors.

6. Connectivity

The need to transmit data between many agricultural facilities still poses a challenge for the adoption of smart farming. Needless to say, the connection between these facilities should be reliable enough to withstand bad weather conditions and to ensure non-disruptive operations.

Today, IoT devices still use varying connection protocols, although the efforts to develop unified standards in this area are currently underway. The advent of 5G and technologies like space-based Internet will, hopefully, help find a solution to this problem.

7. Data collection frequency

Because of the high variety of data types in the agricultural industry, ensuring the optimal data collection frequency can be problematic. The data from field-based, aerial and environmental sensors, apps, machinery, and equipment, as well as processed analytical data, can be a subject of restriction and regulations.

Today, the safe and timely delivery, and sharing of this data is one of the current smart farming challenges.

8. Data security in the agriculture industry

Precision agriculture and IoT technology imply working with large sets of data, which increases the number of potential security loopholes that perpetrators can use for data theft and hacking attacks. Unfortunately, data security in agriculture is still, to a large extent, an unfamiliar concept.

Many farms, for example, use drones that transmit data to farm machinery. This machinery connects to the Internet but has little to zero security protection, such as user passwords or remote access authentications.

Some of the basic IoT security recommendations include monitoring data traffic, using encryption methods to protect sensitive data, leveraging AI-based security tools to detect traces of suspicious activity in real-time, and storing data in the blockchain to ensure its integrity.

To fully benefit from IoT, farmers will have to get familiar with the data security concept, set up internal security policies, and adhere to them.

• Our work case of IoT solutions for agriculture

Our team at Eastern Peak has also contributed to the progress of IoT applications in agriculture. The IoT-powered irrigation application, GreenIQ, helps gardeners reduce water usage by 50%, monitor humidity levels, and predict the best timing for irrigation. GreenIQ uses smart sensors to analyze meteorological conditions and soil types, creating the perfect irrigation strategy and adapting to new environments.

The GreenIQ application also integrates with the most well-known home automation platforms. This app is another valuable contribution to eco-friendly gardening and one of many examples of how smart farming products can change the future of agriculture.

• Grow your agriculture business with smart IoT solutions from Eastern Peak

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) , the global population is expected to surpass 9 billion people by 2050. To produce enough food for the given population, agriculture production volumes have to increase by 50%.

As the resources for agricultural operations are limited (most of the lands suitable for farming are already in use), the only way to increase volume is to improve production efficiency. There is no doubt as to the extent with which smart farming can help tackle this challenge; in fact, it seems that it is not possible without it. Here at Eastern Peak we develop custom IoT solutions for agriculture, tailored to your particular needs.

How to get started?

From cattle tracking to advanced field mapping, IoT applications in smart agriculture vary from farm to farm depending on your market segment, climate, and region. In many instances, out-of-the-box tools won’t be relevant, and you may need a tailored smart farming IoT solution. At Eastern Peak we approach each customer individually to meet their unique needs.

The product discovery phase is the best first step you can take to lay a solid foundation for the development of your app. It includes a functional specification, UX/UI design, and a visual prototype that will give you a clear vision of the end product. On average, this phase takes 4-6 weeks.

The product discovery phase can help you:

• define a full scope of work and develop a roadmap for the project
• set a realistic budget for your MVP and plan your resources
• test the waters with your audience using a visual prototype
• craft a convincing investment pitch
• get to know your team

We at Eastern Peak have already helped many startups and Fortune 500 companies digitize and streamline their operations with the help of technologies. We provide end-to-end services building IoT solutions across a number of business domains, from hardware design to software development, testing, and integration.

To receive professional consultation from our experts, get in touch with us using our contact form .

• Smart Farming: How Automation Is Transforming Agriculture
• 3 Edge Computing Use Cases for Smart Farming

Smart Agriculture Monitoring Solutions to Optimize Farming Productivity

• 6 Cool Examples of Internet of Things Applications and How to Develop One

About the author:

Alexey Shalimov, CEO at Eastern Peak

As CEO at Eastern Peak, a professional software consulting and development company, Alexey ensures top quality and cost-effective services to clients from all over the world. Alexey is also a founder and technology evangelist at several technology companies. Previously, as a CEO of the Gett (GetTaxi) technology company, Alexey was in charge of developing the revolutionary Gett service from ground up and deploying the operation across the globe from New York to London and Tel Aviv.

• The Benefits of smart farming: How’s IoT shaping agriculture

Enjoyed the read?

Don't miss our next article!

MORE ARTICLES

13 Cool Examples of Internet of Things Applications and How to Develop One

The article was updated on February 28, 2023. The number of IoT-connected devices is predicted to triple in just a ...

The article was updated on March 2, 2023. Of all the IoT-enabled solutions, smart agriculture systems unmistakably stand out. Being ...

Cookies help us enhance your experience and navigation. By continuing to browse, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device. We do not collect your personal information unless you explicitly ask us to do so. Please see our Privacy policy for more details.

Farmer-to-Farmer Case Study Series

Farmers adapt to challenges in unique ways. Some of these strategies are unique to a specific location, while others are universal to agriculture. By adopting farming practices such as tillage, residue management, crop rotations, soil organic amendments and resource-use efficiency farmers have been able to overcome barriers, often in unexpected ways. Innovative approaches used by Pacific Northwest farmers to improve on-farm sustainability and longevity are being featured in a series of case studies.

The REACCH Producer Survey showed that other farmers are the most trusted source of information for producers. The goal of these case studies is to inspire others to take management risks on their farms that can improve their overall sustainability and resiliency into the future, by showcasing producers who have done so successfully. Case studies are in progress and will be added to this page as they are completed.

Profiled Farmers

Dryland case studies.

Ron and Andy Juris: Stripper Header (low rainfall)    Video     Full Case Study Highlights the experiences of a father-son team who use the stripper header and direct seeding to maximize water retention and residue retention in a low-rainfall area of WA.

Ron Jirava: Conservation Tillage in a Winter Wheat-Fallow System (low rainfall)    Video    Full case study in progress. Explores tillage strategies used by an innovative farmer in an area that receives 11.5 inches of precipitation annually. These strategies include use of an undercutter sweep, and experimentation with a no-till winter wheat-fallow rotation.

Bill Jepson: Flex Cropping (low rainfall)    Video     Full Case Study Features a direct-seed, OR grain farmer who produces cash crops annually in a traditional wheat-fallow system using a flexible approach based on weather and markets. In addition to increasing the overall farm profit, this system has improved weed control and increased soil organic matter on the farm.

Steve and Becky Camp: Enhancing Crop Diversity (intermediate rainfall)   Video     Full Case Study Features a husband and wife team who have been able to improve soil health and moisture retention by diversifying to a 4-5 year crop rotation utilizing unconventional crops in a low-rainfall area in eastern WA.

Eric Odberg: Precision Nitrogen Application (high rainfall)    Video     Full Case Study Highlights the experiences of a fourth generation, no-till grain farmer for incorporating variable rate nitrogen technology into his farm management strategy in a high-rainfall dryland production region in ID.

Drew Leitch (high rainfall)    Video    Full Case Study in progress Highlights a third-generation farmer who has successfully produced both spring seeded and fall seeded cover crops on his farm in Nez Perce county. Cover crops improve soil health and provide needed grazing for his cow-calf herd.

Steve and Nate Riggers (high rainfall)     Video   Full case study in progress

Irrigated Case Studies

Dale Gies: Biofumigant Cover Cropping in Potatoes    Video     Full case study in progress.  Demonstrates how a wheat-potato farmer has incorporated a mustard cover crop to act as a soil fumigant without destroying soil structure in an irrigated agriculture system in WA.

Jake Madison: Deficit Irrigation    Video    Full Case Study in progress Relates unique strategies used by an Oregon farmer to cope with water limitations. By providing wheat, corn, and alfalfa with less water than they would need to achieve maximum yields, but still enough to be profitable, this farmer saves water for the farm's most valuable crops, primarily potatoes and onions.

Lorin Grigg: Strip-Tillage for Onions and Sweet Corn    Video     Full Case Study in progress Discusses Grigg’s cover cropping and strip tillage strategy to protect onion and sweet corn seedlings from windblown sand near Quincy, WA.

Eric Williamson: Strip-Tillage of Vegetables with Livestock Integration    Video    Full Case Study in progress Williamson's vegetable farm in the Columbia Basin has transitioned to strip-tillage and direct seeding over the past 15 years in order to reduce soil loss and crop damage caused by high winds. The farm also incorporates cover cropping, soil amendments, and integrated livestock.

Rangelands and Dairy Case Studies

Maurice and Beth Robinette: Holistic Management (ranching) Near Cheney WA, Maurice Robinette and his daughter Beth use holistic management practices to run their ranch. See videos on Maximizing Water and Summer Calving

Jay Gordon: A Community-Based Response to Flooding (dairy)    Video     Full Case Study in progress Gordon, a sixth-generation dairy farmer and member of the Washington State Dairy Federation, is part of a group of community partners and researchers who are developing proposals to respond to flooding in the Chehalis Valley.

Ron and Andy Juris: Stripper Header (low rainfall)

Highlights the experiences of a father-son team who use the stripper header and direct seeding to maximize water retention and residue retention in a low-rainfall area of WA.

Left: The Jurises' stripper header, mounted on their combine. Photo by Hilary Davis.

Ron Jirava: Conservation Tillage in a Winter Wheat-Fallow System (low rainfall)

Left: Undercutter. Photo by Bill Schillinger

Bill Jepsen: Flex Cropping (low rainfall)

Features a direct-seed, OR grain farmer who produces cash crops annually in a traditional wheat-fallow system using a flexible approach based on weather and markets. In addition to increasing the overall farm profit, this system has improved weed control and increased soil organic matter on the farm.

Left: Spring wheat grows in winter wheat stubble. When sufficient water is stored in the soil profile over the winter, Jepsen plants spring wheat or spring barley. Photo by Bill Jepsen. 

Steve and Becky Camp: Enhancing Crop Diversity (intermediate rainfall)

Features a husband and wife team who have been able to improve soil health and moisture retention by diversifying to a 4-5 year crop rotation utilizing unconventional crops in a low-rainfall area in eastern WA.

Left: Austrian winter peas farm contrast with wheat and fallow in the background—a more common pattern for the Camps’ area. Photo by Karen Sowers.

Eric Odberg: Precision Nitrogen Application (high rainfall)

Photo by Guy Swanson

Highlights the experiences of a fourth generation, no-till grain farmer for incorporating variable rate nitrogen technology into his farm management strategy in a high-rainfall dryland production region in ID.

Drew Leitch: Grazed Cover Cropping (high rainfall)

Left: Cows grazing in cover crop. Photo by Doug Finkelnburg.

Steve and Nate Riggers: Enhancing Cropping Diversity (high rainfall)

Steve and Nate Riggers grow winter and spring wheat on the Camas Prairie in Idaho, but have incorporated spring broadleaf crops such as peas, lentils, and canola. They also grow less-common crops like buckwheat, turf grass seed, crested wheatgrass seed, and alfalfa in an area that receives about 22 inches of rain annually.

Dryland alfalfa by Darrell Kilgore

Dale Gies: Biofumigant Cover Cropping in Potatoes

Trials of biofumigant efficacy at the Gies farm. Photo: Andy McGuire.

Demonstrates how a wheat-potato farmer has incorporated a mustard cover crop to act as a soil fumigant without destroying soil structure in an irrigated agriculture system in WA.

Jake Madison: Deficit Irrigation

Because Madison’s water sources are limited, Madison deficit irrigates wheat, corn, alfalfa and other hay crops, while high-profit vegetable crops, including potatoes and onions, receive full water. Photo: Darrell Kilgore

Relates unique strategies used by an Oregon farmer to cope with water limitations. By providing wheat, corn, and alfalfa with less water than they would need to achieve maximum yields, but still enough to be profitable, this farmer saves water for the farm's most valuable crops, primarily potatoes and onions.

Lorin Grigg: Strip-Tillage for Onions and Sweet Corn

Grigg plants onions into tilled strips between spring wheat residues. The residues reduce wind erosion, protecting emerging onion seedlings. Photo: Darrell Kilgore

Eric Williamson: Strip-Tillage of Vegetables with Livestock Integration

Planting wheat in strips facilitates planting of the following corn crop using strip tillage. Photo by Darrell Kilgore

Livestock-related case studies are also available at the website of Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources .

The Camp, Gies, Grigg (video), Jepsen, Jirava, Juris, Leitch, Madison, Odberg, Riggers and Williamson case studies are material that is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture, under award number 2011-68002-30191 (Regional Approaches to Climate Change for Pacific Northwest Agriculture). The Grigg case study (written and video) relied on support from Western Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (Western SARE). The Gies case study was completed with the support of the Laird Norton Family Foundation.

• Understanding Poverty
• Urban Development

Urban Agriculture: Findings From Four City Case Studies

• World Bank Urban Development
• PUBLICATION Urban Agriculture: Findings from Four City Case Studies

You have clicked on a link to a page that is not part of the beta version of the new worldbank.org. Before you leave, we’d love to get your feedback on your experience while you were here. Will you take two minutes to complete a brief survey that will help us to improve our website?

Feedback Survey

Thank you for agreeing to provide feedback on the new version of worldbank.org; your response will help us to improve our website.

Thank you for participating in this survey! Your feedback is very helpful to us as we work to improve the site functionality on worldbank.org.

Creators of Skin Deep Database Tapwater Database EWG Verified The New Lede EWG Podcast Search

PFAS Chemicals

• Consumer Guides

Case Study: Iowa Cities Struggle to Keep Farm Pollution Out of Tap Water

Almost three-fourths of the Raccoon River’s watershed – 1.7 million acres – is planted with corn, soybeans and other crops, treated each year with millions of pounds of fertilizer and other chemicals [1] It is also home to 2.3 million hogs and 16 million chickens and turkeys, [2]  whose manure is applied to millions of acres annually. [3]  At the southern tip of the watershed is the city of Des Moines, where each day the Des Moines Water Works supplies water drawn from the river to just over half a million people. 

Figure 1: The 3,625-square-mile Raccoon River watershed drains 1.7 million acres of cropland.

Source: EWG

Commercial fertilizers and manures contain a chemical called nitrate, a form of nitrogen, which gets into the river when rain washes it off fields. It can be fatal to babies who ingest too much of the chemical in tap water and it has also been linked to cancer in adults.

Between the spring of 2014 and the fall of 2015, the average nitrate level in untreated Raccoon River water was 11.12 parts per million, or ppm. The Environmental Protection Agency’s legal limit for nitrate in drinking water is 10 ppm. This standard was set 25 years ago to protect infants against so-called blue baby syndrome and has not been reviewed since. But recent studies by the National Cancer Institute have found that drinking water with just 5 ppm of nitrate increases the risk of colon, kidney, ovarian and bladder cancers. As such, the EWG Standard for nitrate is 5 ppm.

To keep average nitrate levels below the legal limit – although not below the level linked to an increased risk of cancer – the Des Moines Water Works treated the polluted river water with sodium chloride through a process called ion exchange . In 2014 and 2015, nitrate in treated, or “finished,” water from the utility averaged 5.16 ppm. During that period, average levels met the standard, but nitrate levels in individual samples of finished water went up and down, ranging from 0.08 ppm to 9.21 ppm.

Eighty miles downstream from Des Moines, the city of Ottumwa faced the same challenge of keeping nitrate in the water it served to its citizens below the legal limit.

Ottumwa, with a population of about 25,000, does not have a nitrate treatment system, but relies on blending Raccoon River water from other sources to bring down the level of the contaminant. In 2014 and 2015, nitrate levels in Ottumwa’s finished water averaged 6.42 ppm – again, below the legal limit but above the increased cancer risk level. In January 2015 the nitrate level was 9.7 ppm, perilously close to the legal limit.

Real-time water quality monitoring by the U.S. Geological Survey shows a strong correlation between seasonal averages of nitrogen in the river and nitrate levels in drinking water for Des Moines and Ottumwa (see Figure 2). When nitrate in the river spikes, the utilities manage to keep drinking water below the legal limit, but contamination consistently exceeds the increased cancer risk level.

Communities across Iowa face similar problems.

In 2014 and 2015, nitrate levels for tap water in 45 Iowa public water systems averaged at or above 5 ppm. All but three of those systems draw from groundwater under the surface, while the rest, like those of Des Moines and Ottumwa, depend on the river. According to data from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources’ Source Water Protection Program, 30 of the 45 systems drew from wells classified as highly susceptible to contamination. [4]

Private well water is also plagued by high levels of nitrate. A 2016 study by Iowa Watch, a nonprofit news organization, estimated that 288,000 Iowans rely on water from private wells. The study looked at nitrate levels in 28 wells throughout rural southwest Iowa in May and June of that year. They found nitrate levels as high as 168 ppm, with 11 wells at or above 45 ppm.

In 2016 the Iowa Department of Public Health tested more than 1,700 private wells for nitrate. It found that 19 percent were at or above the legal limit of 10 ppm. [5]  This was up slightly from 2015, but down significantly from 2014, when 29 percent of the more than 5,000 wells tested had nitrate levels at or above the legal limit.   

Nitrate not the only problem

Nitrate is not the only threat to drinking water polluted by agricultural runoff.

When it rains, the runoff from poorly protected farm fields carries phosphorous fertilizer and organic matter like manure, mud and crop residues into streams. Phosphorous triggers blooms of algae, which multiply the amount of organic matter in the stream.

To protect people from fecal bacteria or pathogens, utilities must disinfect the water with chlorine or other chemicals. But those chemicals react with algae and other organic matter in the water to produce disinfection byproducts. The byproducts, called trihalomethanes, or TTHMs, carry long-term health hazards.

Drinking tap water contaminated with TTHMs increases the  risk of developing bladder cancer  in humans. In animal studies, TTHMs are also associated with liver, kidney and intestinal tumors. Studies suggest that TTHMs increase the risk of problems during pregnancy as well, including miscarriage, cardiovascular defects, neural tube defects and low birth weight.

The EPA has set a legal limit of 80 parts per billion, or ppb, for TTHMs in drinking water. The limit was based on the technical feasibility of removing TTHMs from drinking water after disinfection and did not consider long-term toxicity. In 2010,  California state scientists estimated that exposure to 0.8 ppm  of TTHMs – 100 times lower than the federal legal limit – would pose a one-in-a-million lifetime risk of cancer.

EWG’s Tap Water Database , which collects test results from almost 50,000 utilities nationwide,  shows that in 2014 and 2015, 33 water systems in Iowa had average nitrate levels at or above 75 percent of the legal limit for TTHM, or at 60 ppb. Three of those systems are in the Raccoon River watershed.  

Who is responsible for cleaning the water?

Pollution of source water from farm runoff puts utilities between a rock and a hard place. They don’t control what happens in the watersheds or above the underground aquifers from which they draw drinking water. But utilities and their customers bear the cost of cleaning contaminants out of the water and adhering to federal regulations.

In 2015, the Des Moines Water Works brought a lawsuit against three upstream drainage districts within the Raccoon River watershed for nitrate pollution. They also sought to require the districts to obtain permits similar to those required under the Clean Water Act for industrial facilities and other so-called point source polluters. In 2017, the Iowa Supreme Court threw out the lawsuit on the grounds that the drainage districts were powerless to control farm runoff.

Iowa and some other farm states have conducted studies of how farmers can manage their lands to keep more nitrogen, phosphorus and other chemicals the soil, rather than running off into rivers, lakes and streams. Some states have codified these strategies and practices into reduction goals, but those rely on voluntary practices, for which farmers can receive taxpayer-funded assistance grants. But a look at two of those practices in the Raccoon River watershed show that voluntary programs are not enough.

Cover crops

Cover crops are grasses or other plants seeded to cover fields after the commercial crop has been harvested. They are remarkably effective at preventing mud, fertilizers and farm chemicals from running off of farm fields when it rains. Their roots also capture and hold nitrate in the soil that a commercial crop didn’t use, and keep it from flowing into streams or ditches or seeping into groundwater.

Capturing this unused nitrate is critically important in fields that have been underlain with pipes to drain water from the soil, a practice that improves crop yields. The pipes are buried a few feet below the surface, and send water out from below the surface into a ditch or stream. Miles and miles of these drainage pipes are buried beneath fields in the Raccoon River watershed (see Figure 3 below). Water from these pipes, which the Department of Agriculture estimates drain more than half of Iowa’s cropland, is the main source of nitrate polluting Des Moines’ drinking water.

Figure 3. Example of a drainage network beneath cropland.

EWG used satellite imagery to locate fields protected with cover crops between 2009 and 2010, and between 2015 and 2016. The good news is in that period the amount of cover crops planted to protect the Raccoon River grew from 7,000 acres to nearly 24,000 acres. The bad news is those 24,000 acres are less than 2.5 percent of the amount of cover crops needed to clean up the watershed. Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy recommends that statewide, 60 percent of Iowa’s fields should be protected with cover crops every year. That would be more than 1.02 million acres in the Raccoon watershed – 43 times more than were protected in 2016.

Federal programs could do more to encourage planting of cover crops. Some progress is being made: In 2015, there were 163 contracts through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to support planting of cover crops, up from just three in 2009. In counties within the Raccoon River watershed, support for cover crops through the Conservation Stewardship Program grew more slowly, from 26 in 2012 to 30 in 2015.

But that’s far from enough. A recent EWG mapping project shows that at current levels of spending, it would take 40 to 75 years before enough cover crops are planted to protect 60 percent of Iowa’s cropland.

Riparian buffers

Riparian buffers are strips of grass or trees planted between crops and streams. When it rains, the buffers filter mud, fertilizer, manure and other pollutants out of water running off fields. Buffers also strengthen stream banks that otherwise may collapse and foul streams with mud and other pollutants.

Riparian buffers are critically important to controlling phosphorus runoff, which can spark the growth of harmful algal blooms in streams, rivers and lakes. Algal blooms, along with mud and manure, are a major source of the organic matter that triggers TTHMs and other disinfection byproducts contaminating drinking water.

EWG used high-resolution satellite imagery provided by Planet – a private earth observation company – to check for buffers along over 2,500 miles of waterways bordered by cropland in the Raccoon River watershed. Our investigation compared acres of buffers within 100 and 50 feet of stream banks from 2010 to 2011 and 2015 to 2016.

We found a net loss, as some landowners added 803 acres of buffers within 100 feet of stream banks, but other landowners destroyed 1,070 acres of buffers. Losses also overwhelmed gains within 50 feet of stream banks. And almost one-fifth of the waterways had no protective buffers at all. Most of those streams are intermittent, flowing only after rains, but are still a major source of pollution.

Data from the federal Conservation Reserve Program confirmed our findings. In Raccoon River watershed counties, between 2009 and 2014, there was a net loss of 376 riparian buffer acres enrolled in the CRP.

See riparian buffer losses and gains on an interactive map.

Time to act

Time is running out for the millions of Americans who depend on water flowing through or under intensively farmed land. Exposure to high levels of nitrate and TTHM are putting their health at risk and increasing the cost of clean water. The cost of adding treatment systems to remove nitrate can be crippling for small communities.

Utilities are doing their best to deliver water within the legal limits, but it is an ever-increasing challenge as pollution of source water goes unchecked. EWG's Tap Water Database shows that from 2014 to 2015, water in more than 1,700 public water systems, serving over 6.7 million people, was contaminated with nitrate at or over an average of 5 ppm, the increased cancer risk level. More than 460 systems, serving more than 500,000 people, had average nitrate levels at or above 7.5 ppm.

Government programs that encourage farmers to act have an important role to play, and focusing these programs on getting the right pollution prevention practices in the right places would make them more effective. But decades of experience show that voluntary programs alone aren't enough.

Landowners who voluntarily adopt a protective practice can voluntarily take it out. Funding for these programs is inadequate to address the scope and scale of the problem. And it’s not fair to ask people already paying utilities to treat their water to also pay to keep contaminants out of the water in the first place.

It’s time for states to enact a basic standard of care – a set of common-sense pollution prevention practices that farmers and landowners should be expected to maintain as part of the responsibilities that go hand-in-hand with the rights of land ownership.

States should tighten existing standards or enact new standards to ensure fertilizers and manure are applied when, where and in the right amount to prevent pollution. Minnesota now requires 50 feet of protective vegetation between cropland and public waterways. More states should follow suit. Landowners should be expected to take simple and well-understood measures to prevent gully erosion that delivers mud, fertilizer, manure and farm chemicals to waterways.

The basic standard of care should be tailored to reflect differences between farming systems and local watersheds, or unique threats to water quality. But a basic set of standards must be in place in every county to create a solid foundation on which a far more effective suite of voluntary government programs can be built.

Beyond state action, reauthorization of the federal farm bill in 2018 is a remarkable opportunity to jump-start progress. 

But it is more than fair to expect farmers and landowners to expand their efforts to protect the environment in return for the generous farm and insurance subsidies they receive. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2016 alone, those subsidies totaled $14.5 billion, with a projection of another $64.3 billion in spending over the next five years.

The conservation compact between farmers and taxpayers in the 1985 Farm Bill sparked dramatic progress in cutting runoff from the most vulnerable cropland and saving wetlands. More than 30 years later, it’s time for Congress to require all subsidized growers and all the cropland they farm to meet conservation standards to cut polluted runoff.

To remain eligible for farm program benefits and crop insurance premium subsidies, farmers and landowners should take steps on all annually planted cropland earning subsidies to:

• Achieve a rate of soil erosion no greater than the soil loss tolerance level on all annually planted cropland;
• Prevent ephemeral gully erosion; and
• Establish and maintain a minimum of 50 feet of perennial vegetation between annually tilled cropland and intermittent or perennial waterways.

Many farmers are likely already doing everything needed to meet their obligations under a new and stronger conservation compact. Those who aren’t should have five years to get their plans in place and another five years to fully apply the plans on their farms.

Donate today and join the fight to protect our environmental health.

The U.S. Geological Survey national hydrography dataset, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources channelized stream layer, and the Iowa Flood Center top-of-bank data were used to establish a footprint for surface water. Those data were subset to remove all public lands, forest, residential area and any land tracts with less than 10 percent area in cultivated land.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency Common Land Units, or CLU, were used to calculate the percent of agricultural area by summarizing pixels of corn and soybeans taken from the USDA’s Cropland Data Layer.

The buffer universe was created by using a 100-foot and 50-foot distance from all agricultural waterways so long as it intersected with CLU classified as agriculture.

For buffer detection, vegetation was detected from the Normalized Difference Vegetative Index, or NDVI, calculated from 5-meter resolution Rapid Eye imagery from Planet. All vegetation was detected between mid-to-late May 2009 and 2010 and mid-to-late May 2015 and 2016. The grass universe was used to calibrate the existence and longevity of buffers within the buffer universe.

Landsat 5 TM and Landsat 8 OLI were used to detect the emergence and vigor of grass using derived NDVI to capture the field level persistence and vigor during the spring and fall. All cover crop acres were subset to areas of corn and soybeans using the USDA’s Cropland Data Layer.

1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Cropland Data Layer. Accessed June 1, 2017. USDA-NASS, Washington, D.C. Available at nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/

2 Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Confinement Feeding Operations Registered with the Iowa DNR. 2016. Accessed June 1, 2017. Iowa DNR, Des Moines, Iowa.  Available at programs.iowadnr.gov/nrgislibx/

3 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012 Census of Agriculture, Table 41. Fertilizers and Chemicals Applied: 2012 and 2007. Available at www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_US_State_Level/st99_2_041_041.pdf

4 Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Source Water Protection Wells. 2015. Accessed June 1, 2017. Iowa DNR, Des Moines, Iowa. Available at www.iowadnr.gov/Environmental-Protection/Water-Quality/Source-Water-Protection

5 Iowa Department of Public Health. Iowa Public Health Tracking Portal. Nitrate Measures. Accessed June 1, 2017. Iowa DNR, Des Moines, Iowa. Available at pht.idph.state.ia.us/Dashboards/Dashboards/Private%20Drinking%20Water/Nitrate%20Measures.aspx

Farm Pollution

• Food & Water

• Farming & Agriculture

• Toxic Chemicals
• Our Mission
• Funding & Reports
• For Partners
• Support Our Work
• Personal Care Products
• Household & Consumer Products
• Family Health
• Regional Issues
• News Releases
• The New Lede
• Testimonies
• Official Correspondence
• News Roundup
• Our Experts
• Ways to Give
• Sign a Petition
• Support Key Legislation

• Orientation
• Getting Help

Agricultural Crops Case Studies

Socio-economic Factors

In addition to the climate and soil resources for crop production, many socioeconomic factors influence which crops farmers chose to cultivate, including production costs, domestic and international market demand; and government policies that subsidize agricultural producers, and reduce trade barriers or export costs. As discussed in Module 3, the protein, energy, fat, vitamins, and micro-nutrients of crops for human nutrition are one predictor of the market value of a crop. However some food crops are highly valued and cultivated for their cultural and culinary qualities, such as flavor (ex. chilies, vanilla, coffee, wine grapes); and their high economic value often reflects high production and processing costs, as well as market demand for their unique culinary and cultural properties.

Some crops are cultivated for non-human food uses such as livestock feed, biofuel, fiber, industrial oil and starch, and medicinal uses. Crop processing often creates by-products that can be used for other purposes, adding market value. For example, when oil is extracted from oilseeds such as soybean, the soybean meal by-product is high in protein and sold for livestock feed or added to human food products. And for crops that are cultivated on many acres often with support from government policies, the consistent, abundant supply of these commodity crops has contributed to the development of multiple processing technologies, uses, and markets. To better understand factors that contribute to the production of commodity crops, we will now examine two case studies of corn and sugarcane.

Understanding Agricultural Commodities: Two Agricultural Crops Case Studies 

In the following two agricultural crop case studies, you will have the opportunity to apply your understanding of crop plant life cycles, classification systems, and crop adaption to climatic conditions to understand how plant ecological features and human socioeconomic factors influence which crops are some of the major crops produced in the world.

• Corn (Maize) Case Study
• Sugarcane Case Study

Addressing the impacts of climate change on agricultural adaptation strategies: a case study in Nepal

• Charoenratana, Sayamol
• Kharel, Samridhi

PurposeAs climate change increasingly affects rural food production, there is an urgent need to adopt agricultural adaptation strategies. Because the agricultural sector in Nepal is one of the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, the adaptation strategies of household farmers in rural areas are crucial. This study aims to address the impacts of agricultural climate change adaptation strategies in Nepal. The research empirically analyzed climate hazards, adaptation strategies and local adaptation plans in Mangalsen Municipality, Achham District, Sudurpashchim Province, Nepal.Design/methodology/approachThis study used a purposive sampling of household lists, categorized as resource-rich, resource-poor and intermediate households. The analysis used primary data from 110 household surveys conducted among six focus groups and 30 informants were selected for interviews through purposive random sampling.FindingsClimate change significantly impacts rainfall patterns and temperature, decreasing agriculture productivity and increasing household vulnerability. To overcome these negative impacts, it is crucial to implement measures such as efficient management of farms and livestock. A comprehensive analysis of Nepalese farmers' adaptation strategies to climate change has been conducted, revealing important insights into their coping mechanisms. By examining the correlation between farmers' strategies and the role of the local government, practical policies can be developed for farmers at the local level.Originality/valueThis study represents a significant breakthrough in the authors' understanding of this issue within the context of Nepal. It has been conclusively demonstrated that securing land tenure or land security and adopting appropriate agricultural methods, such as agroforestry, can be instrumental in enabling Nepalese households to cope with the effects of climate change effectively.

All official European Union website addresses are in the europa.eu domain.

Climate adaptation case studies can help boost know-how across Europe

Press release Published 26 Jun 2024

While European countries have made considerable progress in putting in place policies to adapt to climate change, the pace and scale of adaptation actions need to increase and widen to cover more areas like the health, agriculture, and forestry sectors. A European Environment Agency (EEA) review of the EU’s Climate-ADAPT online platform, published today, shows that sharing examples of adaptation actions can boost learning across the EU, Member States as well as regional and local authorities to help societies better prepare for climate change.

The Climate-ADAPT platform , which is maintained by the EEA, targets governmental decision-makers as well as the organisations supporting them in the development, implementation, and evaluation of climate change adaptation strategies, plans and actions at all governance levels in Europe. The platform currently includes 134 case studies for learning and to inspire action.

According to the new EEA briefing ' Preparing society for climate risks in Europe — lessons and inspiration from Climate-ADAPT case studies' , the recently published European Climate Risk Assessment (EUCRA) stressed the need to scale up adaptation measures and actions across all policy sectors and governance levels to address escalating climate risks like extreme heat, drought, wildfires and flooding.

While Climate-ADAPT case studies cover many risks, gaps remain in practical examples that showcase adaptation in some specific risks under the food, and economy and finance risk areas. New perspectives for developing case studies for other key vulnerable sectors (such as forestry), for governance levels (such as transnational case studies to address cross-border impacts) and for some European regions and the outermost regions of Europe are also under consideration.   

Case studies play a key role for learning 

The EEA is encouraging EEA Member States which often have national case studies to help fill these gaps by sharing more examples of adaptation actions and initiatives that can serve to build knowledge and experiences and serve as inspiration. Showcasing these case studies on Climate-ADAPT helps users to explore the co-benefits and potential trade-offs of adaptation measures . They also highlight the need for enhanced monitoring, evaluation and learning to assess the effectiveness of these actions and prevent adaptation failures. 

The EEA briefing notes that the future development of Climate-ADAPT case studies will focus on addressing specific risks identified by the EUCRA . Cooperation between EEA Member States will be crucial to upgrade the Climate-ADAPT case studies and to share practical learning experiences, including best practices, across Europe.  

Climate-ADAPT webinar 

The EEA briefing is being launched to coincide with the 15 th Climate-ADAPT Webinar ‘Informing the new EU policy framework through Climate-ADAPT’ , to be held online on 26 June, 10.00-11.30 CEST. 

This event is to show how Climate-ADAPT informs the upcoming EU policy framework on adaptation to climate change in the coming years.  

For more information and registration , see the webinar page .

Our latest press releases

Pesticide application behavior in green tea cultivation and risk assessment of tea products: a case study of Rizhao green tea

• Published: 25 June 2024
• Volume 196 , article number  656 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Huimin Zhu 2 ,
• Jinyuan Wu 1 ,
• Yahui Guo 2 &
• Changjian Li 1  

10 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Previous research on pesticides in green tea mainly focused on detection technology but lacked insights into pesticide use during cultivation. To address this gap, a survey was conducted among Rizhao green tea farmers. The survey results showed that most tea farmers were approximately 60 years old and managed small, scattered tea gardens (< 0.067 ha). Notably, tea farmers who had received agricultural training executed more standardized pesticide application practices. Matrine and thiazinone are the most used pesticides. A total of 16 types of pesticides were detected in the tested green tea samples, with 65% of the samples containing residues of at least one pesticide. Notably, higher levels of residues were observed for bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, and acetamiprid. The presence of pesticide residues varied significantly between seasons and regions. The risk assessment results indicated that the hazard quotient (HQ) values for all 16 pesticides detected in green tea were < 1, suggesting that these residue levels do not pose a significant public health concern.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, C. Li, upon reasonable request.

Adhikary, B., Kashyap, B., Gogoi, R. C., Sabhapondit, S., Babu, A., Deka, B., Pramanik, P., & Das, B. (2023). Green tea processing by pan-firing from region-specific tea (Camellia sinensis L) cultivars - a novel approach to sustainable tea production in Dooars region of North Bengal. Food Chemistry Advances, 2 , 100181.

Article   Google Scholar  

Andreo-Martínez, P., Oliva, J., Giménez-Castillo, J. J., Motas, M., Quesada-Medina, J., & Cámara, M. Á. (2020a). Science production of pesticide residues in honey research: A descriptive bibliometric study. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 79 , 103413.

Andreo-Martínez, P., Ortiz-Martínez, V. M., García-Martínez, N., López, P. P., Quesada-Medina, J., Cámara, M. Á., & Oliva, J. (2020b). A descriptive bibliometric study on bioavailability of pesticides in vegetables, food or wine research (1976–2018). Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 77 , 103374.

Baker, B. P., Green, T. A., & Loker, A. J. (2020). Biological control and integrated pest management in organic and conventional systems. Biological Control, 140 , 104095.

Chen, Z., Xu, Y., Li, N., Qian, Y., Wang, Z., & Liu, Y. (2019). A national-scale cumulative exposure assessment of organophosphorus pesticides through dietary vegetable consumption in China. Food Control, 104 , 34–41.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Chen, D., Ji, W., Granato, D., Zou, C., Yin, J., Chen, J., Wang, F., & Xu, Y. (2022). Effects of dynamic extraction conditions on the chemical composition and sensory quality traits of green tea. Lwt, 169 , 113972.

Dai, J., Jiang, C., Gao, G., Zhu, L., Chai, Y., Chen, H., & Liu, X. (2020). Dissipation pattern and safety evaluation of cartap and its metabolites during tea planting, tea manufacturing and brewing. Food Chemistry, 314 , 126165.

Ding, X., Lu, Q., Li, L., Li, H., & Sarkar, A. (2023). Measuring the impact of relative deprivation on tea farmers’ pesticide application behavior: The case of Shaanxi, Sichuan, Zhejiang, and Anhui Province. China. Horticulturae, 9 (3), 342.

Galani, Y. J. H., Houbraken, M., Wumbei, A., Djeugap, J. F., Fotio, D., Gong, Y. Y., & Spanoghe, P. (2020). Monitoring and dietary risk assessment of 81 pesticide residues in 11 local agricultural products from the 3 largest cities of Cameroon. Food Control, 118 , 107416.

Huang, C. C., Cai, L. M., Xu, Y. H., Wen, H. H., Jie, L., Hu, G. C., Chen, L. G., Wang, H. Z., Xu, X. B., & Mei, J. X. (2022). Quantitative analysis of ecological risk and human health risk of potentially toxic elements in farmland soil using the PMF model. Land Degradation and Development, 33 (11), 1954–1967.

Kuang, L., Hou, Y., Huang, F., Hong, H., Sun, H., Deng, W., & Lin, H. (2020). Pesticide residues in breast milk and the associated risk assessment: A review focused on China. Science of the Total Environment, 727 , 138412.

Li, H., Zhong, Q., Luo, F., Wang, X., Zhou, L., Chen, Z., & Zhang, X. (2021). Residue degradation and metabolism of spinetoram in tea: A growing, processing and brewing risk assessment. Food Control, 125 , 107955.

Li, J., Li, H., Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Chen, Y., Yang, N., Hu, Z., Li, T., & Zhuang, J. (2023). Molecular markers in tea plant (Camellia sinensis): Applications to evolution, genetic identification, and molecular breeding. Plant Physiol Bioch, 198 , 107704.

Liu P, Guo Y (2019) Current situation of pesticide residues and their impact on exports in China. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and environmental science. IOP Publishing, p 52027

Google Scholar  

Lou, S., Zhang, B., & Zhang, D. (2021). Foresight from the hometown of green tea in China: Tea farmers’ adoption of pro-green control technology for tea plant pests. Journal of Cleaner Production, 320 , 128817.

Lyulyukin, M. N., Kolinko, P. A., Selishchev, D. S., & Kozlov, D. V. (2018). Hygienic aspects of TiO2-mediated photocatalytic oxidation of volatile organic compounds: Air purification analysis using a total hazard index. Applied Catalysis b: Environmental, 220 , 386–396.

Mathew, L. G., Campbell, E. M., Yool, A. J., & Fabrick, J. A. (2011). Identification and characterization of functional aquaporin water channel protein from alimentary tract of whitefly Bemisia Tabaci. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 41 (3), 178–190.

Miao, S., Wei, Y., Pan, Y., Wang, Y., & Wei, X. (2023). Detection methods, migration patterns, and health effects of pesticide residues in tea. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 22 (4), 2945–2976.

Paramasivam, M., & Chandrasekaran, S. (2014). Persistence behaviour of deltamethrin on tea and its transfer from processed tea to infusion. Chemosphere, 111 , 291–295.

Qiao, D., Luo, L., Zhou, C., & Fu, X. (2023). The influence of social learning on Chinese farmers’ adoption of green pest control: Mediation by environmental literacy and moderation by market conditions. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25 (11), 13305–13330.

Qin, Y., Xu, Z., Wang, X., & Škare, M. (2022). Green energy adoption and its determinants: A bibliometric analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 153 , 111780.

Ruiyi, L., Jin, W., Nana, L., Dan, X., & Zaijun, L. (2022). Electrochemical detection of omethoate and acetamiprid in vegetable and fruit with high sensitivity and selectivity based on pomegranate-like gold nanoparticle and double target-induced DNA cycle signal amplification. Sensors and Actuators b: Chemical, 359 , 131597.

Rutkowska, E., Wołejko, E., Kaczyński, P., Łuniewski, S., & Łozowicka, B. (2023). High and low temperature processing: Effective tool reducing pesticides in/on apple used in a risk assessment of dietary intake protocol. Chemosphere, 313 , 137498.

Shen, Z., Wang, S., Boussemart, J., & Hao, Y. (2022). Digital transition and green growth in Chinese agriculture. Technol Forecast Soc, 181 , 121742.

Sood, C., Jaggi, S., Kumar, V., Ravindranath, S. D., & Shanker, A. (2004). How manufacturing processes affect the level of pesticide residues in tea. Journal of Science and Food Agriculture, 84 (15), 2123–2127.

Sun, Y., Gong, Y., Zhang, Y., Jia, F., & Shi, Y. (2021). User-driven supply chain business model innovation: The role of dynamic capabilities. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma, 28 (4), 1157–1170.

Tan, S., Xie, D., Ni, J., Chen, F., Ni, C., Shao, J., Zhu, D., Wang, S., Lei, P., Zhao, G., Zhang, S., & Deng, H. (2022). Characteristics and influencing factors of chemical fertilizer and pesticide applications by farmers in hilly and mountainous areas of Southwest China. Ecol Indic, 143 , 109346.

Tang, J., Wang, P., Li, X., Yang, J., Wu, D., Ma, Y., Li, S., Jin, Z., & Huo, Z. (2023). Disaster event-based spring frost damage identification indicator for tea plants and its applications over the region north of the Yangtze River China. Ecological Indicators, 146 , 109912.

Veiga-del-Baño, J. M., Cámara, M. Á., Oliva, J., Hernández-Cegarra, A. T., Andreo-Martínez, P., & Motas, M. (2023). Mapping of emerging contaminants in coastal waters research: A bibliometric analysis of research output during 1986–2022. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 194 , 115366.

Wang, X., Zhou, L., Zhang, X., Luo, F., & Chen, Z. (2019). Transfer of pesticide residue during tea brewing: Understanding the effects of pesticide’s physico-chemical parameters on its transfer behavior. Food Research International, 121 , 776–784.

Wang, Z., Luo, F., Guo, M., Yu, J., Zhou, L., Zhang, X., Sun, H., Yang, M., Lou, Z., Chen, Z., & Wang, X. (2023). The metabolism and dissipation behavior of tolfenpyrad in tea: A comprehensive risk assessment from field to cup. Science of the Total Environment, 877 , 162876.

Wei, G., Huang, J., & Yang, J. (2012). The impacts of food safety standards on China’s tea exports. China Economic Review, 23 (2), 253–264.

Wei, K., Ruan, L., Li, H., Wu, L., Wang, L., & Cheng, H. (2019). Estimation of the effects of major chemical components on the taste quality of green tea. International Food Research Journal, 26 (3), 869–876.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Win, N. M., Lee, D., Park, J., Song, Y., Cho, Y. S., Lee, Y., Park, M., Kweon, H. J., Kang, I., & Nam, J. (2022). Effects of bloom thinning with lime sulfur on fruit set, yield, and fruit quality attributes of ‘RubyS’apples. Horticultural Science and Technology, 40 (3), 253–260.

Yang, Y., Xie, J., Chen, J., Deng, Y., Shen, S., Hua, J., Wang, J., Zhu, J., Yuan, H., & Jiang, Y. (2022). Characterization of N, O-heterocycles in green tea during the drying process and unraveling the formation mechanism. Food Control, 139 , 109079.

Yao, Q., Li, J., Yan, S. A., Huang, M., & Lin, Q. (2021). Occurrence of pesticides in white tea and a corresponding risk exposure assessment for the different residents in Fujian. China. J Food Sci, 86 (8), 3743–3754.

Yao, Q., Yan, S. A., Li, J., Huang, M., & Lin, Q. (2022). Health risk assessment of 42 pesticide residues in Tieguanyin tea from Fujian China. Drug and Chemical Toxicology, 45 (2), 932–939.

Ye, G., Xiao, Q., Chen, M., Chen, X., Yuan, Z., Stanley, D. W., & Hu, C. (2014). Tea: Biological control of insect and mite pests in China. Biological Control, 68 , 73–91.

Zhang, F., Lv, Z., Wang, H., Yu, L., Zhou, C., & Yu, Y. (2021). Development of a standard substance for freeze-dried cucumber powder matrix containing chlorpyrifos. Journal of Food Safety and Quality, 12 (1), 262–268.

Zhao, Q., Shi, L., He, W., Li, J., You, S., Chen, S., Lin, J., Wang, Y., Zhang, L., Yang, G., Vasseur, L., & You, M. (2022). Genomic variations in the tea leafhopper reveal the basis of its adaptive evolution. Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics, 20 (6), 1092–1105.

Zheng, X., Nie, Y., Gao, Y., Huang, B., Ye, J., Lu, J., & Liang, Y. (2018). Screening the cultivar and processing factors based on the flavonoid profiles of dry teas using principal component analysis. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 67 , 29–37.

Zhou, Y., He, Y., & Zhu, Z. (2023). Understanding of formation and change of chiral aroma compounds from tea leaf to tea cup provides essential information for tea quality improvement. Food Research International, 167 , 112703.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.

The work described in this article was supported by the Scientific research and innovation project of Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang Science and Technology Development Plan Project, China (2023GX029), and Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, China (ZR2023QB255).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Public Health, Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang, 261053, China

Jinyuan Wu & Changjian Li

School of Food Science and Technology, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, 214122, China

Huimin Zhu & Yahui Guo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Huimin Zhu and Jinyuan Wu: conceptualization, investigation; Yahui Guo: data curation; Changjian Li: writing—review, supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Changjian Li .

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

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 286 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Zhu, H., Wu, J., Guo, Y. et al. Pesticide application behavior in green tea cultivation and risk assessment of tea products: a case study of Rizhao green tea. Environ Monit Assess 196 , 656 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-12842-5

Download citation

Received : 07 April 2024

Accepted : 15 June 2024

Published : 25 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-12842-5

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

• Pesticide residues
• Application behavior
• Risk assessment
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• News & Analysis on Food & Beverage Development & Technology

The first carbon tax on farms has been set, and it’s in Europe

26-Jun-2024 - Last updated on 26-Jun-2024 at 08:16 GMT

• Email to a friend

In a ‘world first’, Denmark is set to become the first to introduce a carbon tax on livestock emissions from 2030 onwards.

This week, the Danish government agreed that to help meet the country’s 2030 climate goals, as well as improve its natural landscape and drinking water quality, a tax on carbon emissions from livestock should be implemented.

The tax is expected to be formally approved by the Danish parliament in August.

Danish farmers taxed according to CO2e output ​

According to the tax, in 2030 a fee of 300 Danish crowns (€40.13) will be charged to farmers per ton of CO2e. The fee is set to increase to 750 Danish crowns per ton of CO2e in 2035.

An income tax deduction of 60% will be available to farmers, which means that in real terms they would be charged 120 Danish crowns per ton of CO2e in 2030, and 300 Danish crowns per ton of CO2e in 2035.

Denmark’s finance minister Nicolai Wammem welcomed the news, describing the day as ‘truly historic’ for Denmark. “We are investing in the future of our agricultural sector, initiating a transition with shared ambitions and goals – laying the tracks to what our country will look like in five, 10 and 20 years from now.

“We know that a CO2 tax model aligned across all sectors gives us the lowest societal costs in total. What we have now done from industry sectors to agriculture shows us that an ambitious green transition is possible.”

Government invests in more trees and forest protection ​

At the same time, the Government plans to spend more than 30m Danish crowns on the removal of approximately 140 hectares of carbon-rich lowland soils and plant 240,000 hectares of forest.

A subsidy scheme is also being set up for the storage of biochar by pyrolysis, whereby biochar is made by heating organic materials, such as wood, without oxygen.

The Government expects the agreement will create ‘major changes’ in the industry, and across Denmark more generally, in the ‘coming years and decades’.

“With this agreement, we will reach our climate goals in 2030, and we will take a big step closer to becoming climate neutral in 2045,” said tax minister Jeppe Bruus.

Could Denmark be the first of many to implement a carbon tax? ​

Denmark is now set to become the first country to implement a carbon tax on agriculture, but only after New Zealand scrapped plans for a similar tax ​ earlier this month.

As to whether other countries will follow suit, the jury is out. But Bruus suggested it could incite action: “We will be the first country in the world to introduce a real CO2e tax on agriculture. Other countries will be inspired by it.”

The predicted greenhouse gas emissions are significant, which indeed could encourage the development of more agricultural taxes around the globe. Overall, it’s expected that Denmark’s greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by 1.8m tonnes of CO2e by 2030, with the potential for up to 2.6m tonnes.

Related news

Related products

Study: Natural Preservation Is What Consumers Want

Content provided by Corbion | 11-Jun-2024 | White Paper

If you’ve been trying to decide between the consumer appeal of a natural solution and the efficacy of a conventional preservative, there's good news....

Culinary Inspiration for future protein products

Content provided by Griffith Foods | 04-Jun-2024 | Product Brochure

Download the Protein Solutions brochure and embark on a journey of culinary inspiration!

Case Study: Make Your Meat Go Further

Content provided by ADM | 07-May-2024 | Case Study

The rising cost of meat has become a significant concern for consumers worldwide, leading many to reconsider their dietary choices.

Formulate for appealing labeling with Symrise chicken meat powder

Content provided by Symrise | 17-Apr-2024 | Product Brochure

In today's competitive market, catching consumers' eyes is paramount.

Related suppliers

• Rethink Events Ltd
• Turn up the heat on your culinary creations Givaudan | Download Application Note
• The B2B Marketing Benchmark – Food & Nutrition Barrett Dixon Bell (BDB) | Download Insight Guide
• Study: Natural Preservation Is What Consumers Want Corbion | Download White Paper
• Culinary Inspiration for future protein products Griffith Foods | Download Product Brochure
• Sustainable sourcing strategies for business continuity Symrise | Download White Paper
• Your partner in plant-based meat alternatives ADM | Download White Paper

Upcoming editorial webinars

• 24 Sep 2024 Tue Webinar Decarbonising Supply Chains at the Source
• 25 Sep 2024 Wed Webinar Eco-friendly Production from Farm to Fork
• 26 Sep 2024 Thu Webinar New Tech and Novel Ingredients for a Sustainable Future

On-demand webinars

• Unlocking Consumer Emotions: A Comprehensive Framework for Emotional Associations in Food and Beverage Product Development
• Real-time Brix monitoring - the secret ingredient your process needs for quality and efficiency

Promotional features

FoodNavigator

• Advertise with us
• Press Releases – Guidelines
• Apply to reuse our content
• Contact the Editor
• Report a technical problem
• Whitelist our newsletters
• Why Register
• Editorial Calendar
• Event Calendar
• Expert Advisory Panel