What is our assessment?

While Improve Aquaculture is unlikely to have a major climate impact, our assessment concludes that it is “Worthwhile” due to its ability to reduce pressure on wild fish stocks and terrestrial biomass, and because efficiency improvements made now are likely to scale into greater climate impact as the sector continues to expand.

What is it?

GHG emissions from aquaculture can be reduced by increasing the feed conversion efficiency of the cultured animals and decarbonizing on-farm energy use. Aquaculture – farming aquatic animals or plants for food or other purposes – is rapidly growing and now accounts for over half of the global production of aquatic animals, exceeding wild capture fisheries. Over 7% of human-consumed protein is aquaculture-produced. As this sector has grown, it has become increasingly reliant on external feed sources, with the share of non-fed aquaculture (e.g., bivalves that feed from the water column) dropping from nearly 40% in 2000 to 27% in 2022. Improving feed conversion ratios (FCR) – the amount of feed it takes to produce a given amount of biomass – can lower feed demand and reduce CO₂ and other GHG emissions tied to feed production and transport. FCRs can be improved by feed formulations that increase digestibility, genetic or breeding modifications to improve digestive efficiency in the cultured animal, species-specific feed formulations, and optimizing ration size and feeding frequency. At the same time, decarbonizing on-farm energy use can help reduce CO₂ emissions from common equipment, such as aerators and water pumps.

Does it work?

Interventions to improve feed and energy efficiency can reduce CO₂ emissions from aquaculture operations, although the potential achievable climate impact of these actions is currently unlikely to be globally meaningful (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ). Total annual emissions from aquaculture were estimated to be 0.26 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr in 2017, with nearly 60% of that attributed to feed production. Improving FCR is both plausible and effective, since it directly reduces the amount of food needed to cultivate fish and other species, thereby lowering emissions tied to feed production and transport. Between 1995 and 2007, improvements in FCR have ranged between 5 to 15% for a variety of species, including shrimp, salmon, carp, and tilapia.

Decarbonizing on-farm energy use can reduce equipment-related emissions, particularly in intensive systems that use energy for automated feeding systems, water temperature control, and circulation and aeration systems. In general, the potential impact of decarbonizing varies widely because on-farm energy use differs significantly across species and production systems. For instance, shrimp and prawn farming use nearly 20,000 MJ/t of live weight (LW), with over 75% from electricity, while bivalve production uses around 3,000 MJ/t of LW supplied largely by diesel.

Why are we excited?

Improving feed efficiency in aquaculture reduces demand for captured wild fish used in feed, reducing pressure on overfished stocks. It also lowers reliance on terrestrial biomass, such as soy, wheat, and rice, which come with additional land-use and emission costs. More efficient feeding can help reduce nutrient pollution, which can be responsible for high methane and nitrous oxide fluxes in some inland aquaculture systems. At the same time, decarbonizing on-farm energy use might ultimately lead to lower long-term operating costs and improved energy reliability.

Why are we concerned?

There are relatively few drawbacks associated with improving aquaculture. In the case of decarbonizing on-farm energy use, upfront costs could be high. For instance, installing solar panels or upgrading pumps can be financially challenging for small-scale operations. Energy use on farms can also vary throughout the day and night, which might not always align with renewable energy sources, like solar, without storage. 

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, vertical farms are not an effective climate solution. The tremendous energy use and embodied emissions of vertical farm operations outweigh any potential savings of reducing food miles or land expansion. Moreover, the ability of vertical farms to truly scale to be a meaningful part of the global food system is extremely limited. We therefore classify this as “Not Recommended” as an effective climate solution.

What is it?

Vertical farms are facilities that grow crops indoors, with multiple layers of plants stacked on top of each other, using artificial lights, large heating and cooling systems, humidity controls, water pumps, and complex building automation systems. In principle, vertical farms can dramatically shrink the land “footprint” of agriculture, and this could help reduce the need for agricultural land. Moreover, by growing crops closer to urban centers, vertical farms could potentially reduce “food miles” and the emissions related to food transport.

Does it work? 

The technology of growing some kinds of crops – especially greens and herbs – in indoor facilities is well developed, but there is no evidence to show that doing so can reduce GHG emissions compared to growing the same food on traditional farms. Theoretically, vertical farms could reduce emissions associated with agricultural land expansion and food transportation. However, the operation and construction of vertical farms require enormous amounts of energy and materials, all of which cause significant emissions. Vertical farms require artificial lighting (even with efficient LEDs, this is a considerable energy cost), heating, cooling, humidity control, air circulation, and water pumping – all of which require energy. Vertical farms could be powered by renewable sources; however, this is an inefficient method for reducing GHG emissions compared to using that renewable energy to replace fossil-fuel-powered electricity generation. Growing food closer to urban centers also does not meaningfully reduce emissions because emissions from “food miles” are only a small fraction of the life cycle emissions for most farmed foods. Recent research has found that the carbon footprint of lettuce grown in vertical farms can be 5.6 to 16.7 times greater than that of lettuce grown with traditional methods.

Why are we excited?

While vertical farms are not an effective strategy for reducing emissions, they may have some value for climate resilience and adaptation. Vertical farms offer a protected environment for crop growth and well-managed water use, and they can potentially shield plants from pests, diseases, and natural disasters. Moreover, the controlled environment can be adjusted to adapt to changing climate conditions, helping ensure continuous production and lowering the risks of crop loss.

Why are we concerned?

Vertical farms use enormous amounts of energy and material to grow a limited array of food, all at significant cost. That energy and material have a significant carbon emissions cost, no matter how efficient the technology becomes. On the whole, vertical farms appear to emit far more GHGs than traditional farms do. Moreover, vertical farms are expensive to build and operate, and are unlikely to play a major role in the world’s food system. At present, they are mainly used to grow high-priced greens, vegetables, herbs, and cannabis, which do not address the tremendous pressure points in the global food system to feed the world sustainably. There are also concerns about the future of the vertical farming business. While early efforts were funded by venture capital, vertical farming has struggled to become profitable, putting its future in doubt.
 

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, cultivated meat is promising in its ability to reduce emissions from meat production, but the impact on a large scale remains unclear. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.

What is it?

Cultivated meat (also called lab-grown or cultured meat) is a cellular agriculture product that, when used to replace meat from livestock, can reduce emissions. Cultivated meat is developed through bioengineering. Its production uses sample cells from an animal, in addition to a medium that supports cell growth in a bioreactor. Energy is required to produce the ingredients for the growth medium and to run the bioreactor (e.g., for temperature control, the mixing processes, aeration).

Does it work? 

Since the development of cultivated meat is still in its infancy, there is limited evidence on its emissions savings potential from large-scale production. Preliminary estimates differ by an order of magnitude, depending on the energy source used in the lab environment. Using fossil energy sources, emissions generated from the production of 1 kg of cultivated meat could reach 25 kg CO₂‑eq. If renewable energy is used, emissions could be about 2 kg CO₂‑eq/kg of cultivated meat. By comparison, producing a kilogram of beef from livestock generates 80–100 kilograms CO₂‑eq, on average. Almost half of those emissions from livestock beef are in the form of methane. Producing pig meat and poultry meat generates about 12 kg and 10 kg CO₂‑eq, respectively. Based on these estimates, cultivated meat could substantially reduce the emissions of beef. Compared to pork and chicken, however, its emissions depend on the source of energy used during production.

Why are we excited?

The cultivated meat industry is fairly new but growing rapidly. The first cell-cultivated meat product was developed in 2013. In 2024, there were 155 companies involved in the industry, located across six continents, mostly based in the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, and Singapore. Agriculture is responsible for about 22% of global GHG emissions, and raising livestock, especially beef, is particularly emissions-intensive. Therefore, cultivated meat has great potential to reduce related emissions as demand for meat continues to grow across the world. Cultivated meat enables the production of a large amount of meat from a single stem cell. This means that far fewer animals will be needed for meat production. Cultivated meat is also more efficient at converting feed into meat than chickens, which reduces emissions associated with feed production and demand for land.

Why are we concerned?

Concerns about cultivated meat include scalability, cost, and consumer acceptance. Because cultivated meat is still an emerging area of food science, the cost of production may be prohibitive at a large scale. Although cell culture is routinely performed in industrial and academic labs, creating the culture medium for mass-market production at competitive prices will require innovations and significant cost reductions. There are still many unknowns about the commercial potential of cultivated meat and whether consumers will accept the products. In 2024, companies began to move from research labs to larger facilities to start producing meat for consumers. Several countries now allow the sale of cultivated meat. In the United States, about one-third of adults find the concept of cultivated meat appealing, and only about 17% would be likely to purchase it, according to a poll conducted on behalf of the Good Food Institute. However, even substituting a fraction of the beef consumed in the United States with cultivated meat could have an important impact on reducing emissions. Cultivated meat is a novel food and may require consumer education and producer transparency on production methods and safeguards in order to become more widely accepted.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, improved ruminant breeding is one of the few promising solutions for reducing enteric methane production from the many millions of ruminants, including those managed on pasture and rangeland. However, it is not a climate solution that will yield quick results, nor is it ready for large-scale deployment at this time. Instead, it should be considered a wise mid- to long-term climate investment that we will “Keep Watching.”

What is it?

Selective breeding can produce ruminant livestock, such as cattle, goats, and sheep, that produce less enteric methane during digestion. Enteric methane represents 21% of humanity’s methane emissions, equivalent to 2.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Enteric methane is produced by microbes in the digestive system – primarily in the rumen, which is the first stomach compartment – and not by ruminants themselves, but its production is a symptom of inefficient digestion by the animal. Therefore, breeding for more efficient use of food by ruminants can reduce enteric methane emissions, while also potentially increasing meat and milk production. 

Does it work? 

Selective breeding of ruminants for reduced enteric methane production has been shown to be effective. One 10-year pilot breeding program resulted in a 12% methane reduction in animals born in the last generation. Other studies have reported emissions reductions ranging from 4 to 45 percent. The effect can be cumulative, with greater reductions in enteric methane production with every selected generation of ruminants. 

Why are we excited?

Despite their disproportionate climate impact, ruminant meat and dairy products are in high demand. Any strategy that can reduce methane emissions per kilogram of meat or milk could, if broadly adopted, yield globally meaningful reductions in methane emissions (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq per year). A major advantage of this selective breeding approach is that it is suitable for both confined and grazing ruminants. The vast majority of ruminant animals spend all or part of their lives on pasture or rangeland. In contrast, feed additives, which can also reduce enteric methane production, are only suitable for confined animals. In addition, there is some evidence that this solution could increase the meat and milk productivity of ruminants by capturing energy from feed and forages that would otherwise have been lost as enteric methane.

Why are we concerned?

Breeding ruminants to reduce enteric methane production is not a climate solution that will show quick results. It will require prolonged testing using expensive measurement equipment on thousands of animals and selective breeding for each breed of each ruminant livestock species over many generations. Some researchers say that decade-long breeding programs will be required. Other than a few research projects, however, the current adoption of selective breeding for methane reduction is very low. Furthermore, selective breeding focused only on methane reduction could result in the loss of other desirable traits, such as productivity or adaptation to local conditions and farming systems. It is also possible that reducing enteric methane emissions per kilogram of milk or meat may not necessarily reduce total emissions if, for example, farmers or ranchers increase their herd sizes. Finally, there is the concern that improved ruminant breeding could be used as a smokescreen to divert attention from the importance of reducing consumption of ruminant meat and milk products in the diets of wealthy countries and reducing food waste of ruminant products.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, feed additives are a promising technology that could yield globally meaningful reductions in methane emissions. A few, including 3-NOP, are just on the threshold of commercial adoption and may be widely used by confined ruminant producers in the coming years. The current use of feed additives is low, and the effectiveness of most feed additive compounds is not well-documented. Consequently, wide-scale adoption is largely confined to confined livestock in high-income countries. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.

What is it?

Feed additives are a diverse group of natural and synthetic compounds that, when fed daily, can reduce enteric methane production in ruminant livestock, including cattle, sheep, and goats. Enteric methane from livestock is the source of 21% of humanity’s methane emissions, or 2.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Feed additives reduce enteric methane production by suppressing the activity of microbes in the digestive system. 3-NOP (3-nitrooxypropanol) is a synthetic that inhibits an enzyme involved in enteric methane production.

Does it work?

More than 170 different feed additives have been developed and tested so far, but only a few of them have been studied enough to offer predictable outcomes and proper doses. Methane reductions from these well-studied additives typically range from 10-30%. The feed additive 3-NOP, the first compound approved for commercial use, reduces enteric methane by an average of 32.5%. A second feed additive derived from active compounds found in Asparagopsis seaweed has shown promising results in some studies and has recently received regulatory approval in two countries. In addition, because different feed additives use different mechanisms to suppress enteric methane production, it’s possible that multiple additives can be used together to achieve greater methane reductions. The great majority of other additives are not yet ready for widespread adoption due to a lack of understanding of effectiveness, side effects on cattle and humans who consume milk from treated cattle, and other concerns.

Why are we excited?

Ruminants are a major source of methane emissions, yet ruminant meat and dairy products are in high demand. Therefore, any strategy that can reduce methane emissions per kilogram of meat or milk is potentially very valuable and, if broadly adopted, could yield globally meaningful reductions in methane emissions (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq per year). The feed additive 3-NOP, first approved for commercial use in two countries in 2021, is now legal in 55 countries. Research on other feed additives is active and generally well-supported with funding from philanthropic and investment sources. Although current use of feed additives is very low, successful research and pilot studies, increasing regulatory approvals, and strong positive interest from the livestock industry suggest that wider-scale adoption of this emissions reduction technology could occur quickly. In addition to potential emissions reduction benefits, some additives offer other benefits such as increased productivity and parasite control.

Why are we concerned?

Because they must be fed daily as a supplement to a concentrated feed, use of feed additives is limited to ruminants managed under confined conditions. Most of the billions of ruminant animals today are raised or managed in extensive grazing or pastoralist systems, often in small herds in remote areas. This makes use of feed additives infeasible, although some research is underway to develop methane-reducing compounds that could be added to water troughs instead of to feed. Feed additives are also costly. Though they may be cost-effective in terms of dollars per ton of CO₂‑eq reduced, the cost of additives themselves would likely be prohibitive for smallholders and pastoralists in low-income countries. These limitations mean that feed additives, as currently under development, are only suitable for a subset of total ruminant livestock – those that are raised in confinement systems in wealthy countries. The great majority of feed additives are not yet ready for widespread adoption due to a lack of understanding of effectiveness, side effects on cattle and humans who consume milk from treated cattle, and other concerns. There are also other challenges, including regulatory issues, public acceptance, and effects on livestock and human health. There is also concern that feed additives could be used to divert attention from the importance of reducing ruminant meat and milk products in the diets of wealthy countries and reducing food waste of ruminant products.

What is our assessment?

The overall effectiveness of seaweed cultivation for food as a climate solution remains uncertain. It could deliver climate benefits at modest cultivation scales while providing a useful end product. Expansion could also benefit land and food systems by reducing agricultural pressures, but it may introduce environmental trade-offs in the ocean that are not yet well understood. We will “Keep Watching” this solution.

What is it?

This solution involves expanding the cultivation of marine seaweed for human consumption as an alternative to higher-emission, lower-protein foods. These can include grains (e.g., wheat, rye, maize, oats, and rice) and, to a lesser extent, vegetables (e.g., potatoes, cassava, broccoli, and cabbage). By switching part of food production from land to ocean systems, seaweed farming helps avoid some sources of terrestrial agricultural emissions, such as those from fertilizer, irrigation, and soil disturbance. Seaweed cultivation, at modest scales and in suitable locations, does not require additional nutrients or irrigation, which can result in lower emissions. Emissions from physical cultivation activities also differ, with tractor use in land-based agriculture being replaced by emissions from boat operations in seaweed farming. Currently, roughly 80% of cultivated seaweed is consumed by humans in food products. 

Does it work?

The climate impact of cultivating seaweed is understudied, but existing estimates suggest that growing a ton of seaweed generates less than a quarter of the emissions from growing a ton of vegetables, such as broccoli and cabbage. The actual climate impact will depend on which types of foods are displaced in diets. Replacing higher-emission, low-protein foods, such as some grain-based staples (e.g., bread or rice), with seaweed could provide even greater climate benefits. More data are needed to assess full cradle-to-grave emissions for seaweed that include transport, processing, and storage prior to consumption. Actual benefits may be lower once full life cycle emissions are considered, or higher if seaweed replaces more emissions-intensive foods. 

Why are we excited?

Unlike terrestrial crops, seaweed cultivation does not require fresh water for irrigation or pesticides for pest management. It is the fastest-growing sector of global aquaculture, and can produce higher biomass yields per area than some land-based crops. Because it grows in the ocean, seaweed farming reduces land demand, which can therefore support terrestrial biodiversity and conservation efforts. If deployed in the right place, seaweed cultivation can also help reduce nutrient pollution in coastal areas. 

Compared to other seaweed-based climate solutions, farming seaweed for food could achieve a meaningful global climate impact using far less ocean area (1–2 Mha versus 6–7 Mha estimated for solutions like Deploy Ocean Biomass Sinking), though estimates remain highly uncertain. Cultivation might also provide additional carbon removal benefits by selecting for high-productivity cultivars and strategically placing farms in areas where carbon fixation and burial are naturally high. 

Finally, global diets are currently overreliant on starch-rich grain crops, highlighting a potential opportunity for seaweed, which is a nutritious source of protein, essential fatty acids, and minerals, to replace these foods and diversify diets in many regions. Across commonly consumed species, seaweeds are generally low in fat and calories and can be rich in fiber and micronutrients, including iron, iodine, calcium, and magnesium. 

Why are we concerned?

There are several environmental and feasibility concerns associated with seaweed cultivation, especially if it is expanded to use large areas of ocean habitat. Global estimates of ocean area suitable for seaweed cultivation range substantially, from 10 to 4,800 Mha, but often lack consideration for real-world nutrient limitations or ecological impacts. A more recent analysis that considers nitrogen, phosphorus, and iron limitations suggests that the viable ocean seaweed farming area is closer to 400 Mha. If regions are prioritized based on where cultivation is not nutrient-limited, where it can achieve high carbon removal efficiency, and where there are lower risks of adverse ecological impacts, potential seaweed farming areas could be limited to the western North Pacific and North Atlantic. The costs of such an expansion are also poorly understood, with some cost estimates per ton of CO₂ fairly high.

Similarly, it’s unclear how viable seaweed is as a large-scale substitute for low-protein foods in real-world diets. Using vegetables as an example, achieving a climate impact of at least 0.1 GtCO₂‑eq/yr could require replacing over 25% of global vegetable production. Assuming productivity typical of subtidal seaweed (6.6 tC/ha/yr), this would translate to an additional ~2.6 Mha of ocean cultivation. An area of 2.6 Mha would equate to a 100-meter-wide continuous belt of seaweed cultivation along 22% of the global coastline. For comparison, seaweed cultivation currently covers less than 400,000 ha. 

At large scales, seaweed cultivation could alter food webs through competition with phytoplankton for nutrients and/or requiring external nutrient inputs, raising serious concerns similar to Deploy Ocean Biomass Sinking. Cultivation can have a range of other negative impacts on coastal ecosystems, too. Seaweed farms established in or near seagrass beds, for instance, can displace existing habitats and species. More research is needed to assess these trade-offs, including the spatial scale required for a globally meaningful climate impact and how seaweed cultivation relates to potential land-use benefits. Further work is also needed to evaluate whether seaweed cultivation could deliver greater climate benefits through other emerging products, rather than as a direct food replacement.

What is our assessment?

Our analysis concludes that, despite its limited global impact for reducing emissions, Reduce Overfishing is a “Worthwhile” climate solution that has other important benefits for ecosystem health and long-term food security.

What is it?

Reducing overfishing lowers fuel use and CO₂ emissions from wild capture fishing vessels by reducing fishing effort on overfished stocks. This is typically achieved through management actions, such as seasonal closures, gear restrictions, and catch limits. Fishing effort, whether measured as the hours spent fishing or distance traveled, is generally proportional to fuel use. In addition to immediate reductions in emissions, reducing overfishing can allow overfished stocks to recover, which can lead to reduced future emissions since fuel use is lowered when fish are easier to catch and harvested sustainably.

Does it work?

Reducing fishing effort in locations with depleted and overfished wild fish stocks is expected to reduce emissions from fishing vessels. When stocks are overfished, fishers must exert additional effort, traveling further and/or searching longer to make the same catch, which increases fuel use and CO₂ emissions. Reducing overfishing through management actions, such as harvest control rules, gear restrictions, seasonal closures, stronger enforcement of existing regulations, and establishment of marine protected areas, can help fish stocks recover. Other policy tools, such as reducing harmful fuel subsidies that currently enable many otherwise unprofitable fishing fleets, are also likely to result in lower fuel use and CO₂ emissions. Healthy fish stocks can be caught with lower fishing effort, translating to future fuel savings and reduced CO₂ emissions. Global estimates suggest that reductions in overfishing could avoid up to 0.08 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, representing almost half of the entire capture fisheries sector's annual emissions (0.18 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ).

Why are we excited?

Currently, overfishing affects more than 35% of global wild marine fish stocks, increasing by 1%, on average, every year. Reducing overfishing not only lowers fuel use and emissions but also allows overfished stocks to recover. Healthy fish stocks strengthen marine food webs and contribute to ecosystem resilience and biodiversity. Overfishing has widespread consequences for diverse marine ecosystems, such as kelp forests, where declines in fish have led to overgrazing of the kelp by sea urchins. Over time, management interventions will also likely improve the sustainability and long-term reliability of coastal livelihoods and food security by supporting sustainable fisheries.

Why are we concerned?

Policy and management tools for reducing overfishing and, by extension, fishing-related emissions come with some challenges. For instance, management measures or legal protections may not be fully effective if implementation or enforcement is weak. Management and enforcement can be particularly challenging on the high seas, where jurisdiction is limited or shared across many nations, and where illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing can be widespread. Even when effective, fish stock recovery can take years to decades, and the costs and trade-offs are unlikely to be evenly distributed across fishing fleets. In the short term, efforts to reduce overfishing could create economic challenges for small-scale fishers who may have fewer resources and less capacity to adapt to management restrictions.

What is our assessment? 

Based on our analysis, improved manure management using impermeable covers and physical or chemical treatments will reduce emissions, although not by a globally meaningful amount. However, because these manure management techniques are broadly available, we conclude this climate solution is “Worthwhile.”

What is it? 

Manure generated from industrial livestock production contains significant quantities of organic carbon and nitrogen. Under low-oxygen conditions, bacteria convert organic material in manure to methane through anaerobic decomposition. Liquid manure, particularly from pigs and cows, produces significant quantities of methane. In oxygen-rich conditions, organic nitrogen in manure undergoes chemical reactions to produce nitrous oxide. Once produced, these GHGs diffuse towards the surface of the manure storage tank, where they are emitted into the atmosphere.

Improved manure management interrupts the production or release of methane and nitrous oxide through a structural barrier, or physical or chemical treatment processes. Manure storage covers made from impermeable synthetic materials effectively prevent the release of GHGs, and can be utilized in conjunction with biogas systems for energy generation. Chemical treatments, such as acidification and the addition of additives, suppress microbial activity, thereby inhibiting methane and nitrous oxide production. Physical processes, such as aeration and temperature reduction, similarly limit optimal conditions for microbial growth. Separating the solids and liquids from manure can also reduce the potential for methane production, enabling more effective solutions such as composting and anaerobic digestion.

Does it work? 

Available technologies for manure management are mature and market-ready. However, empirical evidence of their effectiveness for reducing methane emissions is limited. Pilot studies indicate high effectiveness of manure acidification, moderate effectiveness of impermeable synthetic covers, and low effectiveness of manure additives. Except for the use of natural and synthetic impermeable covers, the overall adoption of these techniques is low. 

Why are we excited? 

Improved manure management can provide environmental benefits by reducing air pollution, preventing nutrient leaching from organic solids that settle into sludge, mitigating eutrophication in downstream aquatic ecosystems, and preventing soil acidification. In the food system, manure management allows for better alignment between crop needs and natural fertilizer characteristics. Since hauling liquid manure is expensive, manure storage and treatment methods promote efficient nutrient cycling and reduce the need for energy-intensive synthetic fertilizers. Abated methane in manure also limits ground-level ozone production upon application, thereby improving crop yields.

At the farm scale, the wide range of treatment options allows for a high level of customization in the manure management process to achieve joint goals of nutrient management, revenue generation, and emission reductions. Covers also directly mitigate risks to farmworker health and safety from manure handling, and manure treatment can further limit exposure to irritants and noxious gases, improving the health of surrounding communities.

Why are we concerned?

Compared to no treatment and other manure-related solutions, such as composting and anaerobic digesters, evidence for the effectiveness of impermeable covers and manure treatment technologies is limited. At realistic levels of adoption, improving manure management is unlikely to have a globally meaningful climate impact (<0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ). High costs are also a key barrier to wider adoption, ranging from US$110–145/t CO₂‑eq for synthetic covers to US$500–3,000/t CO₂‑eq for other treatments.