Perspective: Farm Level Circularities as Solution Pathways to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Lois W. Morton1,*, Ernie Shea2
Published in Journal of Natural Resources and Agricultural Ecosystems 3(2): 81-87 (doi: 10.13031/jnrae.16192). Copyright 2025 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
1 Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA.
2 Solutions from the Land, Lutherville, Maryland, USA.
* Correspondence: lwmorton@iastate.edu
The authors have paid for open access for this article. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License https://creative commons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Submitted for review on 19 September 2024 as manuscript number NRES 16192; approved for publication as a Perspective Article by Associate Editor Dr. David Blersch and Community Editor Dr. Kati Migliaccio of the Natural Resources & Environmental Systems Community of ASABE on 23 April 2025.
Citation: Morton, L. W., & Shea, E. (2025). Perspective: Farm level circularities as solution pathways to sustainable development goals (SDGs). J. Nat. Resour. Agric. Ecosyst., 3(2), 81-87. https://doi.org/10.13031/jnrae.16192
Highlights
ABSTRACT. Circular agricultural bioeconomy frameworks propose that farm level circularities can diversify revenue streams, reduce costs, recycle and manage waste, expand on-farm resources, and regenerate ecosystem services to make the farm profitable, sustainable, and resilient; and can be scaled up to provide solution pathways to achieve global United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, many farmers do not know “where” to start, and policy makers often do not know “where or what” to incentivize or regulate to increase the effectiveness of circular agricultural biosystems. In this paper, the nodes in the farm system “where” circularity might emerge and “what” activities can initiate and accelerate circularity are identified and illustrated by United States (US) and global farmers’ current circular bioeconomy activities. Nodes where circularity can be implemented are located (1) within the farm system as farm-produced inputs are substituted for off-farm purchases and new products are generated, (2) at the interface of the farm system and ecosystem services from the natural resource base, (3) at the interface of off-farm inputs and external resources, and (4) at the interface of the farm system and off-farm outputs and products. Farmer examples at many scales demonstrate the power of circularity, the roles of diversified cropping systems and mixed crop-livestock combinations, on-farm utilization of ecosystem services that return value back to their natural resource base, the critical importance of knowledge, proven technologies and scientific resources, and social and economic networks that enable them to be profitable and sustainable systems.
Keywords.Agriculture, Biodiversity, Bioeconomy, Circular systems, Ecosystem Services, Farmers, Food security, Networked bioeconomies, Regenerated value, Retained value.
Circular bioeconomies, economies that recycle, renew, and regenerate resources, have been proposed as solutions that could concurrently achieve farm level and societal level goals (Jones et al., 2021). Productive and profitable agricultural enterprises are necessary to ensure farm household livelihoods and meet global United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of no hunger or poverty, health and well-being, clean water, and healthy life on land and below water (DSDG, 2015). In this paper we explore farm level circularities, the nodes within the farm production system where on-farm value can be added, retained, renewed, and repurposed, and ecosystem services can be regenerated and utilized as valued inputs and off-farm outputs and products. First, circular agricultural bioeconomies and a general framework of farm-level circularity and nodes, which are places in the farm production system where circularity might emerge and be productive, are discussed. Then farm enterprise examples are presented to illustrate these nodes and activities that promote circularity at the interface of the farm’s natural resource base and production system. Although each farm approaches circularity in their production system uniquely, we draw attention to common patterns and nodes where farm level circularities are working.
Circular Agricutural Bioeconomies
Local and global food and nutrition security begin with farmers, ranchers, foresters, and fishers. Sustainable agriculture and food systems are expected to meet human food and nutrition needs; protect biodiversity and ensure the well-being of ecosystems; adapt to changing climate and market conditions; reduce GHG emissions; and provide livelihoods (FAO, 2023). Circular bioeconomy approaches have the potential for agriculture and their value chains to meet these goals while regenerating and recovering lost resources and addressing the unintended consequences of linear production systems (Morton and Shea, 2022). Agriculture co-produces food and nutrition as end products for human consumption and health and other products such as bioenergy, bionutrients, and biochemicals that can be recirculated as outputs and inputs throughout industrial material and biobased economies (Rodias et al., 2021; CBSI, 2024).
Recognizing the unique differences but complementariness of material circularity (Conway, 2023) and biobased circularity, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation “butterfly diagram” distinguishes one “wing” as circular material economies of steel, plastics, aluminum, and cement and the other “wing” as circular bioeconomies based in renewable resources, both of which agriculture and food production depend upon (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015; Tait et al., 2023). The storage and reuse of carbon are integral components of the bioeconomy, with biodegradability and renewability of biological materials central to regeneration. The integration of material and biobased circular economies manifests itself in agriculture and food systems via farm level circularities (e.g., mixed use and livestock-cropping systems; tractors and equipment; GPS and data technologies; soil and water management; biogas and biochemical feedstock), lateral and vertical exchanges across sectoral networks (e.g., food and agriculture processing and distribution, transportation, energy, communication, manufacturing, and communication sectors), and geographical regional, national, and global networks.
Tait et al. (2023) caution that circular systems may limit innovation and attract less optimal production options if focused solely on closing technical process loops within circular models, rather than enlarging circularity to become a networked bioeconomy. For example, an on-farm biogas recovery unit from animal manure and integrated crop and livestock systems may work well for large-scale farms that are sufficiently capitalized to invest in biogas technologies. This system reuses and recycles cattle manure and bedding in an anaerobic digestor to co-produce electricity for the farm and nutrients that can be returned to the soil. The on-farm closed loop can be enlarged to create regional networks and increase efficiencies by adding neighboring industries, such as the waste from other animal farms and food processors’ waste to the on-farm biodigester (SfL, 2022) or by producing renewable natural gas that can be a substitute for fossil gas. Not all circular systems are feasible or a good fit for different sizes or types of production. Small-scale farmers and fishers often implement their circular systems with technologies that are low-capital and easy to use with labor-saving strategies for pre-harvest, management, and post-harvest activities (Basurto et al., 2025). Small-scale agricultural enterprises enlarge their circularity when they learn new skills, adopt effective new practices and technologies, and network with neighbors and the local community to share resources and develop markets.
The value of an integrated conceptualization of circularity involving bioeconomies and material economies is seen as the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) shapes a future global roadmap (FAO, 2023) for producing more nutritious food and improving rural incomes in ways that do not harm the environment but mitigate climate GHG emissions and reinforce adaptive management. The FAO guidelines (2024) on the Role of Livestock in Circular Bioeconomy Systems elaborate on the intersection of biomass and biorefineries with the production of products and services of primary materials to create circular bioeconomies that recycle biomass and reduce waste generated from industrial food processing, food losses and waste, and animal and human waste. While not all circular bioeconomies utilize livestock, many find mixed crop-livestock systems lend themselves well to circularity. The report reaffirms that “livestock play a crucial role in the circular bioeconomy as they enable the upcycling of agricultural products that cannot be consumed by humans” (FAO, 2024). Livestock contributions range from food production, utilization of plant-based products, nutrient cycling, soil health, and renewable energy generation.
Farm Level Emerging Circularities
Large, mid-sized, and smallholder farmers, ranchers, fishers, and foresters face uncertainties in crop and livestock production systems, local weather and climate, and economic profits as they seek to adapt to and mitigate changes in climate, environmental degradation, and market conditions (Hilmi et al., 2024). Despite the variety of theoretical conceptions of circular agricultural systems, whole system transformations take time and will be costly, and at present remain primarily experimental. So how can farmers begin to find the entry points—the nodes that naturally, without enormous cost, lend themselves to moving from current linear practices into circularity? Internal and external factors that enable or hinder/block the adoption of circularity vary among agricultural sectors, among forestry, fisheries, and livestock-cropping systems, and among natural resource systems of different latitudes, longitudes, climates, and cultures (Khan and Ali, 2022). What do system nodes and intervening actions that might catalyze emerging circularity and be sustainable look like in agricultural enterprises?
A close look at the interface among farm production systems, the natural resource base that provides a diversity of ecosystem services associated with water, soil, air, wildlife, microbial communities, and biodiversity, to name a few, and external resources (fig. 1) reveals numerous nodes where minor shifts in the interface relationship could lead to major changes (Korhonen-Kurki et al., 2024; Meadows, 2008; SfL, 2022).
In evaluating whether a node might have circularity benefits, farmers are asking, will making a change at this place in my system:
- Retain and/or add value as a farm generated input and substitute for an off-farm resource?
- Retain and/or add farm and landscape level value as well as return and regenerate ecosystem services to improve natural resource resilience?
- Expand circular biosystems networks via off-farm inputs and expand access to resources (e.g., raw materials; recycled and regenerated co-products from circular economy networks; education & training; science & technologies; and public/private infrastructures)?
- Expand off-farm outputs (co-products) for consumption beyond the farm gate as consumer end products (e.g., food) and inputs to other farms and value chains?
- Lead to farm outcomes that achieve farmer goals (e.g., increased efficiencies, profitability, reduced labor time and costs, improve soil health, increase water availability and quality, pollination, beneficial microbial activity, biodiversity, etc.)?
- Achieve community, regional and national goals and outcomes (SDGs) for food and nutrition security, biodiversity and environmental gains, and more robust livelihoods and economies?
 |
| Figure 1. Farm level circular bioeconomy. Orange circles represent nodes where circularity investments at the interface of farm systems, ecosystem services from the natural resource base, off-farm inputs, and off-farm outputs have potential to retain and generate value, improve efficiencies, profitability, resilience, and sustainability, and meet other farmer and societal Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). |
Farm Level Bioeconomy Circularities and Networks
A number of farm enterprise examples are presented in this paper to illustrate the nodes, activities, and decisions that promote circularity within agricultural production systems. These examples are drawn from archival materials, virtual and in-person meetings, and informal discussions with farmers who are experimenting with circular systems, including presentations by United States (US) farmers and farmers from countries around the world who have participated in Solutions from the Land and UN FAO platforms over the past four to five years.
On-Farm Retained and Added Value & Regeneration of Ecosystem Services
Successful circular bioeconomies first recover resources in their own systems before importing resources from outside the system (Barros et al., 2020). There are many opportunities at the interface of the farm production system and ecosystem services to retain and add on-farm value, expand off-farm products, and return/regenerate value to the natural resource base. Montana rancher David Mannix and his two brothers, with their wives and children, manage a cow-calf herd, stockers, and a direct-to-consumer grass-finished beef enterprise that illustrates these relationships (Morton et al., 2024). As fifth-generation cattle ranchers in a dry climate, they utilize an intentional, intensive grazing system to prevent overgrazing and land degradation. They divide their pastures into smaller paddocks using portable electric fencing and move cattle frequently to new paddocks, resting the land between grazings. The soil organic matter has increased, as have soil structure and water-holding capacity, and in irrigated pastures has resulted in increased production while using less water. Further, they have abandoned the use of fertilizer on pastures, as the manure from their cattle has been more than sufficient. David finds this grass-based intensive production system has circular benefits, takes care of the cows and the grass, improves soil conditions and beneficial microorganisms, supports native wildlife and the environment, and is economically sustainable.
Biodiversity is embedded in agricultural systems that are sustainable and resilient (KMGBF, 2022). Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) is a circular, biodiversity-friendly management strategy that utilizes a diversity of cropping systems to increase nutrient recycling and crop yields and manage water and soil resources. Shyam et al. (2023) evaluated traditional smallholder cereal systems (rice-wheat; maize-wheat) compared to IFS in India. They found that diversification of crops (e.g., oilseeds, pulses, fruits, and vegetables) in concert with beekeeping, vermicompost, and/or mushroom production minimized tradeoffs within systems, helped in waste recycling, led to byproduct development, and restored ecosystem services that were badly disturbed due to cereal centric mono-cropping. The highest system net returns and benefit-cost ratios occurred under vegetable-based systems due to the diversity of vegetables and frequent nutrient cycling. They cautioned that while diversity was important, the set of management practices selected needed to be flexible and adaptable to local conditions and farm size.
Diversification, as a component of circular systems, also benefits larger scale farm operations and the regeneration of ecosystem resources. Marco Pasti grows a wide variety of annual crops and has perennial grape and walnut orchards along the Adriatic Sea in northeastern Italy (Morton et al., 2025). Soil regeneration is foundational to his circular system and central to keeping his 1,000-ha farm productive and economically sustainable. He minimizes tillage and keeps roots and soil covered using pruned plant materials and cover crops of rye, black oats, and/or clover as mulch in his orchards. This helps retain soil moisture and builds soil organic carbon. He feeds beef cattle from on-farm produced forages (soybean, maize, and silage) and sugar beet pulp left over from sugar beets sold to a local sugar factory. The farm biogas digester is fed cattle slurry waste and two annual silage crops. Digester gas is used on-farm and sold into the power grid, and the digester slurry is returned to his fields as a biofertilizer.
Aquaculture production depends heavily on the ecosystem services that water resources provide. Dan and Tarun Richards, owners of Humpty Doo Barramundi, farm in Australia along the Adelaide River (Morton et al., 2025). What began as a small farm enterprise producing 6 kg of barramundi fish weekly now produces 20,000 times that. Half the farm is a 700-ha saltwater wetland system where five-month-old fish free range until reaching harvest size. Microalgae and saltwater grasses in the wetland filter 99%+ of the nutrients created by the fish. Salt water continuously circulates within the wetland system and does not leave the farm or pollute the freshwater river. Harvested whole fish are trucked to a processing plant where unused parts are diverted to make gelatin-based candies. Dead or rejected fish are sent to a neighboring organic farmer to compost for fertilizing his mango orchard.
Off-Farm Inputs & Resources
Other key nodes in the farm production system where circularity can emerge or be increased are the interface of the farm system with off-farm inputs and resources the farm has access to and selectively chooses to supplement on-farm resources. These nodes represent purchased inputs, value chain relationships, and neighbor-to-neighbor exchanges of raw, recycled, and regenerated co-products from bioeconomy networks. This can entail off-farm labor, access to science and technologies, and knowledge and training resources. Public and private infrastructure such as electricity, water, roads, navigable rivers, rail, and air are critical off-farm inputs that no single farm can afford by itself but cooperatively can provide. Farmers with a cell phone and internet or satellite service can communicate with customers and markets; download a variety of apps for customized agronomic advice; monitor their dairy herd when traveling; track weather patterns, soil temperature, and moisture; and monitor and diagnose pests and diseases as part of their Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Data and knowledge resources are essential inputs into constructing circularities that are affordable and effectively improve decision making and increase farm functionality, efficiencies, and profitability. These resources provide feedback loops to the farmer, guiding decisions about management practices, new circularity approaches, the effectiveness and profitability of new technologies, and enabling the monitoring of crop prices and market conditions.
The value and effectiveness of off-farm resources to increase circularity, food and nutritional security, productivity, and profitability is told by Ugandan, African smallholder farmers Bangi Robert and Ngonzi Tape. Robert grows cacao, amaranth, and pigs on 2.5 ha. The pods of his 3- & 4-year-old cacao trees produce juice and seeds, which are sold at the local market. He feeds his family some of the cacao juice, which is high in magnesium, vitamins, and minerals and has more antioxidants than blueberries. Some of the seeds are dried and fermented to produce a pesticide for his crops. Dried cacao pod hulls are used as fuel, with the ash residue from burning returned to his cacao trees as fertilizer. His pigs also contribute fertilizer to the amaranth field and cacao trees when they free range forage. Tape raises 30 chickens and 15 pigs, both important sources of manure to fertilize sweet potatoes, banana trees, and other crops. The pig manure draws flies, which produce maggots. The maggots are fed to the chickens, which are sources of eggs and meat for her family and income when sold at the local market.
Both Tape and Robert have participated in the Iowa State University Uganda Center for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (CSRL) program for a number of years and credit this program for giving them access to resources, information, and education (CSRL, 2025). Robert would like to add a solar powered pump to draw water and irrigate his crops; the program will help him design and cost it out in support of his decision making. CSRL resources include access to improved seed and livestock genetics, training in diversifying food crops, ways to improve crop and livestock production systems, reduce post-harvest loss, and water collection and storage. CSRL has helped Ugandan farmers to build community networks and value chains for their products. Amaranth, a protein-rich plant, is a cash crop that Robert sells to the ISU Uganda Program community nutrition feeding program. The Ugandan government is also an important resource making loans available to farmers through farmer cooperatives. Tape says, “It is lack of knowledge and resources that prevents other farmers in Uganda from diversifying and improving their farms” (Morton et al., 2025).
The value of access to proven technologies, scientific breakthroughs, and investments in shared resources and collaboration among farmers, their value chains, industries, scientists, NGOs, and governments should not be underestimated in enabling the implementation of effective and profitable circular bioeconomies. The development of and access to seed and livestock genetics are especially important components of circular agricultural systems. For example, the African Orphan Crops Consortium has played a key role in increasing crop diversity and improving the genetics of 101 native African crops to improve seed traits: nutritional value, increased yields, water and nutrient use efficiency, pest and disease resistance, and climatic resilience (AOCC, 2023). The multi-organizational consortium, CASA-Bio, Catalyzing Across Sectors to Advance the Bioeconomy in 2024, issued a report calling for significant investments in integrated advanced plant and animal breeding systems. The goal is to transform agricultural productivity, sustainability, and climate resilience in ways that secure food supply chains, drive biotechnological innovation, and foster economic growth in biofuels and bioproducts (Sorrells et al., 2024). Central to this effort is the intent to more effectively translate foundational discoveries into practice, foster greater collaboration and transdisciplinary science, and democratize access to research facilities and findings. These are forward-looking resources that will help farmers and their value chains to scale up and effectively transform their local bioeconomy, and, in aggregate, reimagine and transform agricultural systems into high functioning agroecosystems of economic, environmental, and social value locally and globally.
Off-Farm Outputs, Farm Outcomes and Networks
Primaryend products of farm, forestry, and fishery circularity production are a large variety of nutritious food products that are consumed fresh by consumers as well as prepared and repackaged by value chain partners for distribution throughout local and global food system networks. The interface nodes between farm production and their outputs can expand the farm bioeconomy beyond the farm gate and support regional and national bioeconomies. Many farm co-products become inputs as raw, partially refined, and finished materials for other farms, industries, and value chain partners that distribute, repurpose, and regenerate these materials throughout agriculture and food networks. Basso et al. (2021) discuss the production of staple grain crops and the need for economic considerations in networks beyond the farm, such as marketing infrastructure in support of more diversified crop mixes, established standards for circular sustainable food production practices and related certification and labeling programs that reward private investment in circularity. The extent to which circularity flows throughout these networks of consumers and value chain partners (i.e., their recycling, reuse behaviors, reduction of food waste, and resource uses) influences pollution levels, environmental health, gains in clean water and air, and profitability.
An example of bioeconomy farm outputs that are networked into regional and global economies is the Canadian farm enterprise owned by commodity producers Bob Lowe and his brother Don (Morton et al., 2025). They manage a 9,712 ha beef cattle-grain crop operation in Alberta with barley, canola, wheat, peas, and lentils harvested and sold primarily into commodity markets. Cattle rotationally graze mountain pastures in the summer and are moved to fields about 3,000 feet above sea level in the fall to graze the residue of harvested crops. Some crop residues are baled into straw and fed to the cattle in winter and spring. For the last 25 years this rotational grazing system has boosted soil health and cattle productivity. Their 6,000-head feedyard primarily produces backgrounder cattle fed to 800–900 lbs. and sold, with some finished to market weight and sold to Cargill, a company 20 miles from their operation. Bob estimates that feedyard manure applied to crop fields has a $300,000 fertilizer value in addition to improvements in soil structure and moisture retention. This circularity has turned marginal land into highly productive cropland.
Another example where value-added farm resources and off-farm inputs are used to reduce costs, retain value, and create off-farm networks for farm products is Gamble Creek Farm, located on a tributary of Manatee River, which flows into Tampa Bay in west-central Florida, US. Ed Chiles, owner of this 10.5 ha organic farm, has been implementing a circular economy model since 2021, bringing together sustainable agriculture, aquaculture, and top-tier restaurants. Leafy greens and other vegetables from Chiles’s farm are sold to his own and other local restaurants that return trimmings and food waste to his farm which along with discarded oyster and clam shells from nearby aquatic seafood beds, are combined with soil and mulch to create a high value, nutrient rich compost. Some of these waste materials are also fed into a biodigester where biogas is used to generate electricity on the farm and for his restaurants for cooking. Other wastes are placed in a vermicomposter where earthworms convert raw plant-based waste into biologically active soil high in nutrients. These enriched soils and the digestate from his biodigester are used to grow high quality vegetables, fueling the circularity of his bioeconomy.
Conclusion
The overarching intent of farm level circularity is to diversify revenue streams, reduce costs, manage waste, supplement on-farm feed, take control of the farm supply chain, and work with others to create circular solutions (Basso et al., 2021; FAO, 2023; 2024). Identifying the nodes in the farm production system where circularity can be implemented can help farmers achieve these goals. Nodes are located (1) within the farm system, where farm-produced inputs can be substituted for off-farm purchases and new products generated; (2) at the interface of the farm system and ecosystem services from the natural resource base; (3) at the interface of off-farm inputs and external resources; and (4) at the interface of the farm system and off-farm outputs and products.
Farmers’ real-life examples illustrate these places and activities where changes, adjustments, and sometimes even redesign activities can occur and catalyze emerging or accelerate circularity and be sustainable. There is no prescription or particular “nodes” or places that will be “best” for all farm enterprises at all scales or in any one situation, time, or geography. Farmers must “try out” and experiment, learning what combinations are effective and profitable for their farm operation. Having tried one circular bio-experiment, circularity often naturally cascades throughout the farm as farmers learn to recognize the potential and find deepening their efforts at recycling, renewing, and regenerating resources have economic and environmental payoffs.
On-farm circular biosystems are complex and ever-changing, just like the natural systems they attempt to mimic, and take time and resources to develop. Decisions about “where” and “what” changes to make in the farm system will continually shift as weather, climate, markets, resources, and personal conditions change. This means “value added and retained” and “returned and regenerated ecosystem services” can also shift. Canadian rancher Bob Lowe finds that, under current market conditions, it is more economical to sell most of his grain and purchase feed from another farmer for his feedlot cattle. A US beef farmer commented that many years ago it was better economically for her family to buy beef from the store than to set aside their own beef for the family freezer (Morton et al., 2025). In other geographies, cultures, and market conditions, other farmers have found the economic, environmental, and social benefits of retaining on-farm value as feed for their livestock, nutrients for tree and plant crops, and nutritious food for their family offer greater value than purchasing off-farm feed and household food.
There are many entry points to circularity, nodes that naturally, without enormous cost, lend themselves to moving the farm production system from current linear practices into circularity.The farmer who does not know “where” to start or recognize potential circularities in their systems can begin by identifying places in their systems where circularity might work and learning from other farmers what is working for them.Further, focusing on nodes in the farm system that are good candidates for initiating, sustaining, and accelerating circularity provide policy makers guidance on “where and what” to incentivize or regulate to increase the effectiveness of circular agricultural biosystems. Resilience within circular systems arises from intensive (within farm) and extensive (beyond the farm gate) monitoring and feedback mechanisms to guide adjustments and realignments. Whether farm circularities are centered on biodigesters, large-scale production and global markets, or smaller-scale operations, diversification strategies, proven technologies, local and regional markets, and observational and operational data systems are important. Regardless of the kinds of circular systems farmers try out and put in place, they are finding past experiences, observations of current conditions, data technologies, and their external networks are of great value in creating sustainable and resilient systems.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the farmers from around the world who have shared their experiences and insights on creating circular and sustainable production systems. Special appreciation to our private, public, and NGO sector partners who strive to deliver agricultural solutions to global challenges.
References
AOCC (African Orphan Crops Consortium). (2023). Africa Feeding Africa: The African Orphan Crops Consortium (AOCC) 2023 Progress Report. Retrieved from https://africanorphancrops.org/Reports/
Barros, M. V., Salvador, R., de Francisco, A. C., & Piekarski, C. M. (2020). Mapping of research lines on circular economy practices in agriculture: From waste to energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 131, 109958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109958
Basso, B., Jones, J. W., Antle, J., Martinez-Feria, R. A., & Verma, B. (2021). Enabling circularity in grain production systems with novel technologies and policy. Agric. Syst., 193, 103244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103244
Basurto, X., Gutierrez, N. L., Franz, N., Mancha-Cisneros, M. d., Gorelli, G., Aguión, A.,... Thilsted, S. H. (2025). Illuminating the multidimensional contributions of small-scale fisheries. Nature, 637(8047), 875-884. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08448-z
CBSI (Circular Bioeconomy Systems Institute). (2024). Creating multidisciplinary stakeholder alliances to innovate circular bioeconomy systems. Circular Bioeconomy Systems Workshop March-June 2024. St. Joseph, MI: ASABE.
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2022). Kunming-Montral Biodiversity Framework adopted CBD/COP15 of Convention on Biological Diversity, Decision 15/4.
Conway, E. (2023). Material world: The six raw materials that shape modern civilization. New York: Alfred Knopf.
CSRL (Center for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods). (2025). Iowa State University Uganda Center for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods, Uganda Program, Kamuli District. Ames, IA: College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Office for Global Engagement. Retrieved from https://www.csrl.cals.iastate.edu/
Division for Sustainable Development Goals (DSDG). (2015). The United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2015). Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe. SUN and McKinsey Center for Business and Environment.
FAO. (2023). Achieving SDG2 without breaching the 1.5 C threshold: A global roadmap, Part 1 - How agrifood systems transformation through accelerated climate actions will help achieving food security and nutrition, today and tomorrow, In brief. Rome, Italy: United Nations FAO. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4060/cc9113en
FAO. (2024). Guidelines on the role of livestock in circular bioeconomy systems. For public review. Rome, Italy: United Nations FAO.
Hilmi, Y. S., Tóth, J., Gabnai, Z., Király, G., & Temesi, Á. (2024). Farmers’ resilience to climate change through the circular economy and sustainable agriculture: a review from developed and developing countries. Renew. Agric. Food Syst, 39, e15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170524000097
Jones, J., Verma, B., Basso, B., Mohtar, R., & Matlock, M. (2021). Transforming food and agriculture to circular systems: A perspective for 2050. Resource, 28(2), 7-9.
Khan, F., & Ali, Y. (2022). Moving towards a sustainable circular bio-economy in the agriculture sector of a developing country. Ecol. Econ., 196, 107402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107402
Korhonen-Kurki, K., Horn, S., Entsalo, H., Turunen, T., D’Amato, D., Riechers, M., & Närhi, J. (2024). Leverage points for sustainability transformation: Identifying past and future changes in the Finnish (circular) plastic packing system. Ecol. Econ., 219, 108136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108136
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Morton, L.W., Girgis, C., & Shea., E. (2024). Cross-boundary collaboration in large working landscape management: Anticipating and planning for climate disruption and continuous change in US West grassland-forest working landscapes. Solutions from the Land. Lutherville, MD. USA.
Morton, L. W., & Shea, E. (2022). Frontier: Beyond productivity — recreating the circles of life to deliver multiple benefits with circular systems. J. ASABE, 65(2), 411-418. https://doi.org/10.13031/ja.14904
Morton, L.W., Shea, E., San Juan, M. G., & Neretin, L. (2025). Farmers Around the World: Circular Approaches for Scaling Bioeconomies. Solutions from the Land. Lutherville, Maryland USA; FAO. Rome Italy.
Rodias, E., Aivazidou, E., Achillas, C., Aidonis, D., & Bochtis, D. (2021). Water-energy-nutrients synergies in the agrifood sector: A circular economy framework. Energies, 14(1), 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14010159
SfL (Solutions from the Land). (2022). Iowa Smart Agriculture: Circles of Life. A Vision for the Future. Lutherville, MD: Solutions from the Land.
Shyam, C. S., Shekhawat, K., Rathore, S. S., Babu, S., Singh, R. K., Upadhyay, P. K.,... Singh, V. K. (2023). Development of integrated farming system model — a step towards achieving biodiverse, resilient and productive green economy in agriculture for small holdings in India. Agronomy, 13(4), 955. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13040955
Sorrells, M. E., Gondro, C., de Leon, N., Messina, C., Mueller, M., & Reading, B. (2024). AgSystems: Accelerated breeding for a resilient bioeconomy. CASA-Bio. Retrieved from www.casa-bio.net
Tait, J., Raybould, A., Flight, M. H., & McGoohan, A. (2023). Circular and networked bioeconomies for net-zero food production: There is nothing magic about circles. Circ. Econ. Sustain., 3(4), 1907-1918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-022-00247-w