Why Net Zero Isn’t a Realistic Goal for Agriculture

June 13, 2025 | Charlotte Cuthbert, Communications Coordinator with CFFO

Why Net Zero Isn’t a Realistic Goal for Agriculture

There’s been a lot of talk lately about “net zero” emissions. Governments, corporations, and advocacy groups are setting bold targets—many with the year 2030 circled in red. And on the surface, who wouldn’t want to reduce emissions and protect the environment? Farmers certainly do. After all, we rely on healthy soil, clean water, and stable weather more than anyone else.

But there’s a growing disconnect between the conversations happening in boardrooms and the realities playing out in barns and fields. The idea that agriculture, particularly in Ontario, reach net zero emissions might sound good in a press release, but for those of us who actually grow the food, raise the animals, and manage the land, it’s clear: net zero isn’t just unrealistic, it’s impossible.

Let’s start with what isn’t being said enough: Ontario farmers have already made real, measurable progress. Since 1990, agricultural emissions in the province have dropped by 12%. Since 2005, they’re down 23%. And that didn’t happen by accident. (https://www.ontario.ca/page/climate-change)

It happened because farmer’s care. It happened because we’ve invested in more efficient equipment, embraced conservation practices, planted cover crops, and adopted precision agriculture to reduce inputs and improve yields. Many have taken steps to manage manure more efficiently, reduce tillage, and improve pasture rotation. We’re not standing still—we’re adapting every season.

But there’s a line between improvement and impossibility. And net zero crosses that line.

There’s a reason agriculture can’t hit zero emissions—and it’s not because we aren’t trying. It’s because some emissions are simply part of the biological and mechanical systems required to grow food.

Livestock, for example, produces methane during digestion. No amount of innovation can fully eliminate that. Yes, there are feed additives and breeding strategies that can help reduce methane output. But eliminate it? Not without eliminating the animals themselves. Humans emit roughly 400 million metric tons of methane a year: as much as two-thirds of all methane entering our atmosphere. Does that mean we should start eliminating humans? ( https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-methane-do-human-activities-put-atmosphere )

Then there’s the equipment. Combines, tractors, sprayers, trucks—we rely on them every single day. And while there’s talk about electrifying farm machinery, the technology just isn’t there yet. Electric tractors that can work the size and hours needed on a commercial farm don’t exist at scale. Even if they did, the charging infrastructure in rural areas can’t support it. Try running an electric combine for 12 hours during harvest and see how far you get.

And let’s not forget about synthetic fertilizer. It’s a critical tool for feeding a growing population. Some argue we should replace it entirely, but current alternatives can’t match the yields or reliability. Cutting back too far risks food shortages and rising prices—not just in Ontario, but around the world. It has been proven that corn helps with the absorption of carbon and is actually very helpful and good for the environment. An acre of corn can absorb a substantial amount of CO2 during the growing season, potentially exceeding 36,000 pounds. (https://www.agweb.com/news/crops/crop-production/corns-carbon-cowboy-busts-outstanding yields#:~:text=Carbon%20Guzzling&text=%E2%80%9CAt%20200%20bu.,story%20we%20need%20to%20tell.%E2%80%9D)

The truth is simple: food production comes with a footprint. Always has. Always will. What matters is how responsibly that footprint is managed—and Ontario farmers are already leading the way on that front.

But the more pressure there is to push agriculture toward an unreachable zero, the more damage we risk doing. Pushing farmers to abandon livestock or drastically reduce inputs may look good on a chart, but it comes with real-world consequences: lower productivity, higher food prices, fewer young people entering farming, and a broken food supply chain.

And let’s be clear: the people pushing for net zero in agriculture aren’t the ones who will pay that price—we are. Farmers, rural communities, and consumers will bear the burden of unrealistic policies and disconnected decision-making.

It’s time for some honesty in this conversation. Farmers aren’t afraid of change. In fact, we’ve always adapted. Every year is different—new weather, new markets, new challenges. We’ve always found ways to evolve. But there's a difference between innovation and fantasy. Net zero is a fantasy for farming and setting it as a hard target only sets us all up to fail.

What we need instead are practical, science-based goals that recognize the biological limits of agriculture while continuing to support the efforts farmers are making. We need policies that reward progress, not perfection. And we need policymakers to stop treating farmers like villains and start treating us like partners.

Because if we want a sustainable future—one with safe, reliable, affordable food on every table—then we need to support the people who make that possible.

And that starts with telling the truth: net zero in agriculture is not possible.

Charlotte Cuthbert is the Communications Coordinator for the CFFO. The CFFO Commentary represents the opinions of the writer and does not necessarily represent CFFO policy.