Review of the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers in Action White Paper on Building a Scientific Roadmap to a Carbon-Negative Agricultural System (2024)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

1 Introduction In the summer of 2020, the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers in Action (USFRA) and Foundation for Food & Agricultural Research requested the assistance of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) to review a draft white paper describing a roadmap for research that could ultimately render U.S. agricultural production carbon negative, with the general intention that as a sector, the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be less than zero, an accom- plishment to be achieved by reducing future emissions of agricultural production activities coupled with sequestering carbon through soil management and potentially other means. A scientific working group was established by USFRA and tasked to draft the white paper, which is intended to serve as a guide for the research priorities and for actions and practices that, implemented across the food and agricultural system, could collectively help it achieve the goal of negative emissions. The National Academies agreed to appoint an ad hoc committee of experts to review the white paper (to be provided in a draft form) and prepare a consensus report of its critique. In late 2022, a call for sug- gestions of experts was issued in anticipation of the completion of the draft. Based on the content of the draft, which the National Academies received in mid-2023, a team of qualified individuals was identified and appointed in late 2023 as the white paper review committee (see Appendix B for brief biographies of the committee members). The framework for the committee’s review used a general set of criteria modeled on similar reviews of scientific documents conducted by the National Academies, mainly for federal agencies. The framework emphasizes examining the clarity of the document’s key messages and effectiveness of its organization along with its scientific rigor, including the quality and completeness of the evidence presented as the basis for its arguments, reasoning, and conclusions. Based on that framework, this report serves as the commit- tee’s review of the draft white paper. The full Statement of Task for the committee’s work is provided in Box 1-1. BOX 1-1 Statement of Task An ad hoc committee appointed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will conduct an independent review of a White Paper on Building a Scientific Roadmap to a Carbon Negative Agricultural System. The review will provide an overall critique of the white paper and address the follow- ing questions: • Are the goals, objectives, and intended audience of the product clearly described in the document? Does the report meet its stated goals? • Does the report accurately reflect the scientific literature? Are there any critical content areas missing from the report? • Are the findings documented in a consistent, transparent, and credible way? • Are the report’s key messages and graphics clear and appropriate? Specifically, do they reflect supporting evidence and communicate effectively? • Are the research needs identified in the report appropriate? • Are the data and analyses handled in a competent manner? Are statistical methods applied ap- propriately? • Are the document’s presentation, level of technicality, and organization effective? • What other significant improvements, if any, might be made in the document? 2 

Introduction THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH TO THE TASK AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT The committee members were given the draft white paper to read in advance of a public meeting held with members of the authoring group to ask questions and receive clarification on issues, after which the authors submitted some modifications and edits to the final chapter. A second public meeting was held for a follow-up conversation and further discussion. The committee held several closed meetings to discuss the white paper, develop and carry out a plan to undertake the review, address the task, and reach a consensus on all aspects of the review. Chapter 2 of this report provides the committee’s general assessment and overarching comments, followed by major issues of concern and key comments on individual chapters. Within each of these sec- tions, the committee provides considerations for improvement. Appendix A presents many additional spe- cific points for each chapter, by manuscript line, and several editorial and minor comments at the end of each chapter review. 3