Trump’s global trade shake-up has prompted nearly every nation around the globe to reexamine their own trade policies, asking what is worth protecting while looking for domestically acceptable concessions to offer the US in exchange for tariff relief and market access. While the economic impact of the trade chaos on minerals, metals, and grain farmers capture headlines, the future, and potential, of U.S. beef exports remains an untold story.

As global demand for beef and other meats continues to rise, U.S. producers have an opportunity to simultaneously increase their profits and help reduce global emissions from agricultural production. U.S. exports of beef, in particular, could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by millions of tons. Beef production is inherently carbon intensive, accounting for roughly 6% of all global emissions. Yet, U.S. producers—thanks to their intensive, feedlot based systems, leading cattle genetics, and grain-supplemented diets—are among the world’s most carbon efficient. For example, one pound of American beef has about a quarter of the carbon footprint of one pound of beef from Brazil—the world’s largest beef exporter—and half that of beef from Argentina.

And while Trump is unlikely to jump at the opportunity to increase beef exports because it would reduce global climate emissions, negotiating advantageous trade deals for U.S. beef producers would be a real political win for an administration that is currently wearing the patience of many farm state republicans. If the Trump administration succeeds at finding export markets for U.S. beef, they would be able to claim a rare win-win for both American beef producers and the climate.

Share

How Beef Exports Reduce Global Emissions

Global agricultural trade is often seen as a net negative for the climate. The localist impulse supposes that food grown closer to where it is consumed is fundamentally better for the environment. But, this logic assumes two things: first, that food grown everywhere has the same impact; and second, that transportation represents a larger share of the overall climate impact of food than the production system. Both of these assumptions are false.

The climate impact of food hinges more on how it is produced than how far it travels. When U.S. exports displace higher-emission production abroad, they reduce global emissions—even after accounting for transport. In Chile, for example, over ninety-five percent of beef imports are from Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay. The average emissions intensity of production in these countries, weighted by the share of imports from each source, is 42.7 kg CO2e per kg of beef. That is nearly three times the emissions intensity of beef produced in the United States (15.7 kg CO2e per kg of beef), which provides barely more than one percent of Chile’s beef imports. Beef from Paraguay or Argentina does not travel near as far to reach markets in Chile, but the difference in shipping emissions is paltry in comparison to this difference in production emissions. Our World In Data estimates the emissions intensity of refrigerated ocean shipping at 23 g CO2e per ton-kilometer of freight. At that rate, which is much higher than most industry estimates, a kilogram of beef shipped 6,000 miles (9,600 kilometers) from Seattle, USA to San Antonio, Chile would accrue about 0.22 kg of CO2e shipping emissions; less than one percent of the carbon advantage from more efficient US production practices.

The greatest emissions benefits from expanding U.S. agricultural exports would come from displacing other countries’ imports of beef, especially countries that both import large volumes and that source from high-emissions producers. A 10 percentage point increase in the U.S. share of beef imports in China, for example, would have the largest benefit, reducing emissions at least four times more than a similar change in imports for any other country. This is because China not only imports the most beef globally, but is also sourcing an increasing share from Brazil and Argentina.

Several other countries, particularly in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, also offer substantial, though smaller, climate mitigation opportunities. Modest shifts in the U.S. share of beef imports in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, or Vietnam could cut emissions by hundreds of thousands of tons. Likewise, shifting beef imports toward the U.S. in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, or Israel could avoid significant emissions.

Subscribe now

Pre-Existing Trade Barriers, Not Trump’s Tariffs, Are the Largest Impediment to Expanding U.S. Beef Exports

In recent years, U.S. beef exports have stalled or even declined in key markets. Expanding U.S. exports of beef to China and other countries will require comprehensive trade agreements and policy reforms. In many countries, U.S. beef faces an array of non-tariff barriers, such as protectionist sanitary or veterinary requirements that are out of step with international science.

When China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, the U.S. quickly overtook Australia as the leading supplier of beef to what was then a small market. However, China banned U.S. beef in 2004 after mad cow disease was detected in the herd, and kept the ban in place until long after the disease was eradicated. U.S. beef exports to China grew rapidly after 2019 when the first Trump administration negotiated the removal of additional trade barriers, but the Chinese beef market had already taken off, and Argentina and Brazil had taken a dramatic lead. The U.S. accounted for only 5% of China’s beef imports in 2024. Imports have fallen in 2025 as China allowed beef export licenses for over half of U.S. meatpackers to expire, halting thousands of tons of weekly shipments. For the U.S. to take a meaningful share of Chinese beef imports, China will need to change their current facility-by-facility approving processes to a systems-based approach that automatically recognizes all U.S. plants meeting pre-defined standards.

Another priority in negotiating any trade agreement should be to align China’s feed additive requirements with international scientific consensus. China currently bans beef with any residue of ractopamine, a growth-enhancing feed additive frequently used in the US. Concerns about ractopamine safety are largely overblown. It is metabolized and passed from the muscle of meat animals quickly and the World Health Organization considers it safe as long as residues stay below set levels. Barring wholesale cancellation of its ban, China should at least follow through with a commitment it made earlier, under the US-China Phase 1 Agreement with the US, to conduct a risk assessment for ractopamine in cattle as well as pigs.

U.S. beef exports to Malaysia, Indonesia, and other countries in Southeast Asia face similar non-tariff barriers as for China. Many countries in the region limit residue levels of ractopamine. Thailand, for example, has a similar zero-tolerance policy as China. Many nations in the region also require each meat processing plant to receive approval to export meat, not accepting health and safety inspections performed by USDA.

A few nations, including Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, also require any livestock or poultry product imports to be certified halal. While halal production has become more common in the United States in recent years and producers have learned to navigate certification, the process can still be costly, and it is not always clear which countries accept certification from which halal boards. This came under scrutiny when Egypt delisted all but one US halal certification board in 2019, and then centralized certification under a single state-owned entity in 2020. Former Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey was accused and eventually convicted on corruption charges for participating in a scheme to offer preferential treatment for a single US company to receive halal certification in the Egyptian market. While several countries have taken steps to overhaul their halal certification processes, there seems to be a significant opportunity for the US government to help harmonize standards and remove uncertainty in halal certification processes.

Share

Negotiating and Relaxing Tariffs Would Still Have Significant Benefits

While non-tariff barriers are often the main obstacle to expanding U.S. beef exports, tariff reductions—especially in China—still offer significant potential for climate gains.

China’s demand for beef has skyrocketed, with annual imports rising more than fivefold since 2014 to over 2.5 million tons. Most of this surge is now supplied by Brazil and Argentina, whose beef production is two to four times more carbon-intensive than that of the United States. Until recently, China applied a 12% tariff on U.S. beef, matching the rates for its top suppliers. But amid escalating trade tensions, China raised the U.S. tariff to 32%—a steep penalty that has slashed U.S. market share and allowed higher-emissions producers to dominate.

Negotiating a reduction in China’s beef tariffs that restores a level playing field or provides the U.S. with preferential trade status, similar to the agreement in place with Australia, may represent the largest climate mitigation opportunity in global agricultural trade. It is unlikely that the Trump administration, which has consistently antagonized China, could attain preferential trade status from Beijing. And it does not seem likely that the current administration would concede enough in negotiations to reverse the past six months of trade barriers. But, if the U.S. could secure the same share of imports held by New Zealand or Australia in 2023, the emissions benefit would be substantial, potentially preventing 874 thousand to 1.58 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually.

By contrast, beef tariffs elsewhere rarely exceed 10% and matter far less than entrenched non-tariff barriers or local demand trends. In markets like Indonesia or the Philippines, modest tariffs play only a minor role in shaping U.S. market share compared to regulatory hurdles and certification requirements. A few countries that import particularly high-emissions beef, shown below, stand out as exceptions though few import large quantities. Algeria, for instance, maintains a 30% tariff on U.S. beef, rarely importing any, and Cambodia has levied a 15% tariff on most beef until recently proposing reducing it in response to the tariffs President Trump proposed in April. Reducing tariffs there and in several other smaller markets could deliver outsized climate benefits.

U.S. beef producers have been able to redirect many of the beef cuts once destined for China to South Korea, but exports of beef were already down in April, and compared to the fast-growing Chinese market, the market for beef in South Korea does not offer the same growth potential for the US beef sector. Beef prices hit historic highs last year, driven by tight cattle supplies after years of herd contraction. In response, ranchers are now rebuilding their herds—a move that will boost production in four to five years. As production rises, U.S. beef producers will be grateful to whoever finds them a large and expanding market, of which China is the most reliable on the planet.

Trump Has a Chance to Do the Unthinkable: Mark a Win for the Climate and Beef Producers Alike

While American manufacturing experienced a decades-long decline, the United States never lost its edge in agriculture, and still leads the world in overall livestock production and productivity. This made American farmers a target for retaliation to President Trump’s increase in tariffs. But the reality is that US livestock producers have long faced a slew of discriminatory trade practices, tariffs as well as non-tariff barriers. By restricting imports of US produced beef, whether through complex import licensing, bans on hormone-use, or high tariffs, countries are closing their doors to some of the most climate friendly beef in the world. All too often as domestic demand rises, they turn instead to imports from less efficient producers.

As a growing number of countries seek to strike trade deals with the U.S., the Trump administration quietly has the opportunity to mark a win for both U.S. beef producers and global climate emissions. Given the current tension between U.S. agricultural communities, their representatives and senators, and Trump, negotiating increased U.S. beef exports would also represent a political win for the administration.

Beef is often characterized as something of a climate villain. High rates of methane emissions, large swaths of land needed to feed cattle, and viscerally ugly feedlots crowded with cows and manure, understandably produce a negative response from climate advocates and animal welfare activists. But, until billions of people decide that they will forego ribeyes, burgers, and brisket, the impacts of beef will remain significant. Reducing those impacts will require creative solutions that take advantage of technology, efficiency, and comparative advantage. In this vein, the U.S. cattle rancher and feedlot operator might be unlikely heroes.

As the Trump administration reviews federal programs, reduces the federal workforce, and prepares its 2026 budget proposal, cuts to climate-related agricultural research and development (R&D) appear likely. The administration has already cancelled agricultural research projects funded by USAID, frozen funds for the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Climate-Smart Commodities initiative, and proposed terminating USDA conservation projects that mention climate change. Although the administration hasn't explicitly targeted USDA’s agricultural R&D programs yet, funding for all climate-related efforts is at-risk.

We estimate that eliminating all climate-related agricultural R&D could affect up to $424 million in grants and other spending at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA), and other federal agencies. This estimate is based on a keyword analysis of over 100,000 federal grant records, searching for terms related to greenhouse gas emissions or climate mitigation.

Widespread funding cuts would jeopardize not only climate mitigation, but also farmers’ productivity and international competitiveness. A large share of climate-related research focuses on improving farmers’ efficiency, with climate mitigation merely a co-benefit or component of the research project. Many other projects with a primary focus on climate mitigation—such as those researching how to cut nitrous oxide emissions by making fertilizer application more efficient—also contribute to making farmers more productive and reducing risk.

Yet federal R&D efforts could be improved by focusing less on reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint and more on increasing its productivity, for instance through breeding higher-yielding crops and livestock that are more disease-resistant. Productivity-enhancing research is critical to keeping food prices low and American farmers internationally competitive. In fact, funding more research that boosts yields, improves fertilizer efficiency and otherwise increases productivity could reduce greenhouse gas emissions even more than efforts narrowly focused on climate mitigation such as soil carbon sequestration and cattle methane inhibition.

Share

Most Climate Research Is Productivity Research

Indiscriminately freezing or halting funding for R&D projects that mention greenhouse gas emissions or carbon sequestration, or are otherwise climate-related would hurt farmers. Many of the projects related to climate mitigation also improve productivity and resiliency. Soil with a higher carbon content, for example, is typically better at retaining moisture, while novel fertilizer technologies and efforts to cut cattle methane emissions can reduce farmers’ input costs.

Soil Carbon Research Can Improve Yields

Research into soil carbon—the carbon stored within soil organic matter—is frequently cited as a key climate mitigation strategy in agriculture and accounts for the largest share of climate-related research we identified. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act included $300 million to study how farming practices, like reduced tillage or planting cover crops, can store carbon in the soil or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While such research is important for identifying where and when climate mitigation is possible and most cost-effective, it has also shown that many widely promoted farming practices, including cover crops, fail to significantly increase soil carbon storage.

However, broader research into soil management—though it includes measurement or consideration of soil carbon and may therefore be considered “climate-related”—offers significant and tangible benefits for agricultural productivity. Practices such as no-till farming and cover cropping can enhance soil fertility, improve moisture retention, and reduce erosion—outcomes that directly boost crop yields and decrease the need for costly inputs like irrigation and fertilizers. This aspect of soil carbon research, which aims to understand and optimize farming methods to enhance soil health and productivity, is undeniably valuable to farmers.

Federally funded research has played a key role in identifying when, where and how no-till and low-till farming increases yields and where adoption may be less beneficial. A NASA-funded study found that no-till particularly improves yields on rainfed plots with smaller benefits or mixed effects in humid regions. An analysis supported by the Department of Energy found it also raises yields in arid regions and for oilseed crops. Other research, funded by NIFA and NSF, has demonstrated that the yield benefits increase with continuous no-till over at least fifteen years, and the majority of no-till systems recoup implementation costs within three decades.

Rather than focusing narrowly on carbon sequestration, crop and soil scientists at America’s land grant universities are exploring how soil, climate, and farming systems interact in order to optimize agricultural productivity. A recent NIFA-funded project at Purdue University, for example, employs artificial intelligence to optimize soil sampling. Though the project, “Leveraging Open-Source Geospatial Information For Sustainable Soil Management And Climate-Smart Agriculture” may appear to be climate-focused, one of its main goals is to help farmers precisely apply fertilizers and other inputs. This is a promising approach to increase productivity by reducing input costs, minimizing runoff, and improving soil nutrient availability.

Fertilizer Innovation Can Reduce Farmer Input Costs

Fertilizers are not only a leading expense for many farmers, but also one of the top sources of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

Federally-funded research on nitrogen-fixing soil microbes aims to convert more nitrogen from the air into a form crops can use, which could enable farmers to reduce fertilizer application rates, simultaneously lowering their costs and cutting nitrous oxide emissions, a potent greenhouse gas. Though this technology is emerging and uncertainties remain, its potential productivity and environmental benefits strongly justify continued investment. Research suggests certain microbial inoculants can decrease the need for chemical inputs, while microbial fertilizers can enhance soil health by improving nutrient availability and reducing dependency on synthetic fertilizers leading to lower costs for farmers.

A range of plant breeding studies related to nitrogen and nitrous oxide emissions also hold promise to reduce fertilizer needs by improving plants' natural nutrient absorption. For example, a joint project between Prairie View A&M and Texas A&M supported by NIFA is studying sorghum cultivars that secrete a compound which mitigates soil nitrogen loss. Though ostensibly focused on climate change—”climate smart” is in the project title—the research could significantly reduce fertilizer requirements while maintaining or improving yields with the end effect of improving farmers' economic bottom lines.

Reducing Cattle Methane Enhances Livestock Efficiency

Livestock methane emissions are agriculture’s second-largest source of greenhouse gases. Methane is produced by methanogenic bacteria in cattle stomachs that convert complex starches into methane. These bacteria consume energy that cattle may otherwise be able to use for growth or milk production. Inhibiting methane-producing bacteria can thus directly improve productivity while cutting emissions. For instance, an analysis of 15 studies found that feed additives containing the compound 3-NOP, marketed in the U.S. under the name Bovaer by the animal pharmaceutical company Elanco, can reduce beef methane emissions by about 30% while maintaining weight gain and reducing the amount of feed animals need, thereby saving producers money. However, additional research on long-term efficacy, animal health implications, and meat safety of 3-NOP treated animals is likely needed to gain FDA approval and establish consumer trust in the novel technology. USDA has previously funded similar long-term research with dairy cows, which Bovaer is now approved for.

Other federally-funded research is exploring and developing alternative ways to reduce cattle methane emissions while also improving productivity, including projects focused on gut microbiomes and selective breeding. For example, researchers at the University of Wisconsin, with grant-funding from NIFA, are measuring enteric methane emissions of cattle across two University research farms, identifying low-emitting cattle, and conducting further research on the gut microbiome of these animals. The largest study of its kind to date, this effort leverages existing University resources to better understand cattle health and digestion and discover routes to reduce enteric methane production and improve feed efficiency. Research like this can pave the way to develop new methods of methane inhibition with lower costs for technology adoption and improved returns to farmers. Similarly, a NIFA-funded effort at University of Pennsylvania is setting the scientific foundation for selective breeding programs that target cattle with naturally lower methane emissions, which could enhance overall herd productivity.

More Productivity Research Needed

None of this is to say that the current distribution of federal agriculture R&D funding is optimal. In fact, shifting funding to focus more on efficiency and productivity would be a win-win-win, benefiting farmers, consumers, and the environment.

For farmers, improved seeds, practices, and technologies can raise yields, lower input costs, and increase resilience to pests, disease, and climate stress. Consumers benefit through more abundant and affordable food. Environmentally, higher productivity reduces pressure to convert forests or grasslands into farmland, thereby cutting land-use change emissions and preserving biodiversity. Productivity-focused research can also enable more efficient use of water, fertilizer, and other inputs, decreasing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of food produced.

Research commissioned by The Breakthrough Institute estimates that doubling public U.S. agricultural R&D spending would increase U.S. productivity by about 60% compared to a business-as-usual scenario, thereby expanding crop and livestock output more than 40%, reducing prices by more than 1/3, and substantially cutting greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from avoided deforestation. In fact, as this and other research shows, investing in productivity-enhancing R&D typically reduces emissions more cost-effectively and permanently than many efforts directly focused on helping farmers sequester carbon or reduce emissions.

While the private sector has an incentive to invest in productivity-enhancing research, public R&D fills many critical gaps in private funding. Government programs support early-stage basic research; high-risk, high-reward efforts; projects that require coordination across many public and private actors; and projects that benefit smaller markets that the private sector poorly serves. Historically, public R&D investments have spurred innovations such as hybrid crops, pest-resistant plants, and more efficient irrigation methods—critical drivers of productivity growth.

In particular, USDA should strive to better support early-stage initiatives that could dramatically increase yields and reduce food prices. These areas include developing low-cost and effective microbial fertilizers, livestock breeds genetically engineered to be disease-resistant, and next-generation solutions to reducing the amount of energy cattle lose as methane. The Department of Defense pioneered work to support such high-risk, high-reward R&D in other fields. USDA should follow their lead, for instance by establishing the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority.

Smart Investment, Not Indiscriminate Cuts

Put simply, any change in priority areas eligible for federal R&D funding should be done in a targeted, evidence-based manner. Recent actions by the administration indicate a different approach. A recently leaked USDA memo suggests that ARS will not un-freeze funding for research projects that mention certain terms related to climate and environmental outcomes, including “climate”, “greenhouse gas emissions”, and “methane emissions.” The breadth of this list of censored terms is concerning, discouraging even the acknowledgement that a research proposal may have a climate related co-benefit.

A blanket cut for all research projects with a climate component, whether at ARS or USDA-wide, won’t just hinder climate progress—it would directly weaken the long-term viability of American farming. Agricultural research requires sustained investment to generate meaningful innovations. Abrupt funding reductions disrupt multi-year projects, squander past investments, and erode America’s competitive advantage in global agriculture. Any reallocation of funds must therefore be carefully done to avoid halting valuable research and wasting taxpayer funds as well as to ensure that funds are redirected toward promising research areas.

Shifts in funding should also not reduce total R&D funding, which would exacerbate a long-term slowdown in U.S. agricultural productivity. Public investment in U.S. agricultural research—from USDA, other federal agencies, and states—has declined significantly over the past two decades from $7.64 billion in 2002 to $5.16 billion in 2019—a nearly 30% reduction, adjusting for inflation. This decline is the leading contributor to a slowdown in agricultural productivity growth. The 2024 Global Agricultural Productivity Report found that U.S. agriculture has not been growing more productive, while India, for example, has a robust annual productivity growth rate of 1.7 percent. Greater productivity growth is crucial for improving America's ability to sustainably feed a growing global population and maintain competitiveness in the international agricultural market.

Thanks to bipartisan support in Congress, USDA’s R&D funding has recently begun to rebound. Funding levels for USDA R&D agencies in 2024 surpassed $3.6 billion, just shy of the funding levels in the early- and mid-2000s. However, this rise in funding could easily be undone. If funding is cut for all climate-related agricultural research and is not reallocated to other areas, USDA’s R&D budget could fall by 11%, to approximately $3.2 billion. ARS could see a decline of as much as $214 million and NIFA a decline of as much as $144 million, primarily in its chief grant-making program, the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), which we estimate awarded $82 million to climate-related projects in 2024.

Ultimately, USDA’s research agencies should take a pragmatic, science-based approach, investing in a wide range of productivity-enhancing R&D efforts including projects focused on increasing fertilizer efficiency, reducing the energy that cattle lose as methane, and improving soil health. This should include shifting the emphasis of research away from a narrow focus on climate mitigation toward productivity growth, which could yield larger benefits for farmers, consumers, and the climate alike. At the same time, the administration should avoid indiscriminately slashing funding for projects that mention climate as these too are key for strengthening farmers’ productivity and resilience.

You can find the methods for the above analysis here.

By Benjamin Goren

Donald Trump promised to bring inflation down on day one of his presidency. He has yet to succeed. Politicians and pundits looking to sway the public away from President Trump have jumped on persistently high prices—eggs in particular—as a winning messaging strategy.

In a recent Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced a five part plan to combat highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and the resulting high egg prices. The major tenets are to reexamine a policy on culling whole flocks, to increase imports for eggs, to explore the potential impacts of poultry vaccination, and to provide support for biosecurity measures on poultry farms. The Secretary has pledged $1 billion for the latter two items. As Secretary of Agriculture, she can sidestep administration cost cutting efforts by taking these funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation, an entity created to cover variable farm payments that has become a slush fund for whatever administration is in power.

The long-term success of Secretary Rollins’ initiatives is hard to predict. Culling whole flocks is unpopular and expensive and a better alternative is welcome, but it is not clear that one exists. Meanwhile, the success of trade policy to reduce egg prices will depend in part on the willingness of trading partners to sell eggs to the US, as well as international cooperation on a bird flu vaccine. This last item is a major sticking point for many industry groups hoping to maintain access to export markets.

Share

In her Op-Ed, Secretary Rollins urged patience, and she is right to do so. Despite what Democratic strategists might think, voters are smart enough to know that a new president’s economic agenda takes longer than a few weeks to yield results. Even if HPAI were eradicated today it could take months for egg prices to return to normal as laying hen populations rebound. But like human influenza, avian influenza is seasonal. The first outbreak of the current strain of HPAI became widespread in 2022. While prices and disease spread have been exceptional this winter, egg prices have spiked the last two winters as well, following the spread of influenza by geese and other birds migrating south in the fall. As temperatures warm up and cases decline this summer, egg producers and consumers should find temporary relief, allowing the Trump administration to claim a win for the changing of the seasons.

HPAI cases will rise again next fall, but even if a vaccine is not adopted, there is no guarantee that the upcoming winter will be as bad as the one we are leaving behind. Treatment strategies, farm practices, and natural immunity are all likely to improve over the next nine months with or without intervention from the Trump administration. Egg prices will fall this summer, and if they do not bounce back with a vengeance next year Democrats will have handed President Trump a highly visible win.

International coordination on an avian flu vaccine would be a remarkable achievement, but even that is not a panacea as many vaccines have been shown to drastically reduce bird mortality, but are less effective at preventing the spread of avian flu. As Rollins acknowledges, controlling this avian flu epidemic will likely require persistent action on multiple fronts. This could include improving sanitation and biosecurity on farms, development of novel methods to control avian influenza in wild birds, and even the use of genetic engineering to breed layer hens that are resistant to HPAI.

Unfortunately, the administration’s attempts to execute indiscriminate firings, including within the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine—the body responsible for reviewing and approving veterinary medications and intentional genomic alterations in poultry and livestock—and the uncertain future of the public agricultural research workforce, could slow the development and deployment of the type of new technologies that have provided consumers with increasingly affordable eggs for decades.

Subscribe now